Planning by general contractor or independent architect?

Hello everyone,

we are just at the very beginning of our house-building plans – we have bought a plot of land, had a first general conversation with a general contractor (GU), and have many questions.
It is a long text that I am writing here, so I am very grateful if you give me feedback. For better clarity, I have separated and numbered my questions.
We want to have a turnkey house built by a solid construction company. A building inspector known to us recommended four companies in our region upon request, with which he has had good experiences for years. We talked to an architect from one of these companies about our rough ideas before buying our plot. Since we know that many builders have actually had good experiences with this company, this will be our first point of contact when things get more concrete.
However, we are wondering whether we should have the entire planning including the offer done by this company first to then get offers from competitors, or if we should initially commission an independent architect and finally go to the construction companies with the plans he created. In any case, we want the offers to be compared by an expert because we might not fully understand the service descriptions ourselves.
I know that similar questions have often been discussed here in the forum, but since this was partly in a somewhat different context, I am very grateful if you share your experiences with me.

Option 1: Planning by the construction company
The architect of one company we talked to made a generally serious and competent impression on us. However, we felt that he wanted to influence our thought processes a little. For example, he advised us against a basement regardless of the plot – with weak arguments. We found this very disturbing and wonder whether he would tend to influence us in future conversations to refrain from equipment options that are less lucrative for the company than others. In case of doubt, we might not notice this as much as with the basement issue.
Of course, you don’t get such an independent plan from a company as you do from an independent architect. On the other hand, we wonder whether a house planned by a construction company tends to be significantly cheaper than a house planned by a free architect. Many solid builders strongly deny selling cookie-cutter houses, but it is obvious that they have proven schemes in mind that are economically favorable for them. Hence my first question:

1. In your assessment, is it the case that the builder will be financially better off if the planning is done by the construction company?
For us, it would be perfectly fine to take a ready-made floor plan that might still be adjusted in details. We basically do not need a custom architect house. However, we would still want honest advice during the planning that is not exclusively shaped by the construction company’s financial interests.
One more question on this:

2. Assuming we let the named company plan the house and then approach competitors with these plans. In your experience, would the competitors be able to use the plans and submit an offer, or should we rather expect that we would have to plan everything again from scratch with each competitor?
Aside from the fact that the second case would be time-consuming, we also wonder to what extent offers based on different plans would even be comparable.

Option 2: Planning by independent architect
Because of the independence of free architects, we see advantages but as mentioned above wonder whether a house planned by the architect will be significantly more expensive than one based on a few modifications of a floor plan that a construction company has already realized many times.

3. Furthermore, we cannot assess whether construction companies are always able to make good use of an architect’s plans or whether it sometimes happens that they want to create their own plans before making an offer, which would cause double the time and cost effort. Actually, we want to obtain offers from the four mentioned construction companies, so we are interested that none of them drops out just because it did not plan the project itself.

4. I have learned that there is often discussion about which service phases you should commission from an independent architect if you want a general contractor to build. Tobias Beuler & Co. recommend phases 1-3, others advise strongly against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually needed, which are nice to have?

And finally:
5. We wonder which of the two options 1 and 2 is ultimately more time-saving. It is clear that building a house will be time-intensive, but we are currently in a life situation where we are quite tightly scheduled. If time can be saved in good conscience, that is already an important criterion for us.

Thank you very much in advance for your answers!

The architect of one company,

In the end, a salesperson for the construction company. That must never be forgotten. He works for the general contractor and receives his salary from there.

In your opinion, is it financially better for the client if the construction company does the planning?

No, why should the house become cheaper?

Assuming we would let the mentioned company plan the house

, then it will either be a run-of-the-mill plan or you pay for it.

that competitors could do something with the plans and submit an offer

They could, but what will the offer look like? More than a page with really ALL quantities, dimensions, and qualities? To really be able to compare, you need a tender that the architect makes.

Offers based on different plans are even comparable.

Not at all.

We see advantages due to the independence of free architects, but as written above, we ask ourselves whether a house planned by an architect is significantly more expensive than one based on a few modifications of a floor plan that a construction company has already implemented many times.

Ah, modifications. So it's no longer standard. The further you move away from the off-the-shelf house, the more expensive it gets. Then new plans have to be drawn, water/sewage and electricity may no longer fit. Structural engineering needs to be redone too, please.
Architect = house planned according to your wishes
Builder at best, if you take the off-the-shelf house as it is (like buying a suit – if it then needs longer trouser legs, smaller waist, etc., you might as well have one tailor-made straight away).

Furthermore, we cannot assess whether construction companies can definitely make use of architects' plans

That's what the plans are for. And the tenders. The company gets 120 pages with your wishes. It can either fulfill them and submit an offer or not. If not, then no and it loses a customer. The nice thing is that these 120 pages, which precisely depict your entire house, go to 4 construction companies. And then you can really compare.

I have noticed that it is often discussed which service phases one should use from a free architect if you want to have a general contractor build. Tobias Beuler & Co. recommend phases 1-3, others advise strongly against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually needed, which are nice to have?

Read up on the contributions by .

We wonder which of the two options 1 and 2 is ultimately more time-saving

Forget the question after a few months with an investment of 500k or more. If you make a mistake at the beginning, it won’t cost you three months, but the next 25 years or longer you’ll be annoyed because the planning was rubbish.

Is it possible to save time in good conscience

No, not really.

For us, it would be completely fine to take an off-the-shelf floor plan that might still be adjusted in details if necessary. We don't really need a custom architect-designed house. However, we would wish for honest advice during the planning that is not solely driven by the financial interests of the construction company.

If already created plans are reused, that means a better margin for the service provider – I don’t necessarily see a real advantage for you there. Regarding the quality of advice, I have a somewhat different view than – it depends more on the person than on the employment relationship.

Assuming we would have the house planned by the said company and then approach competitors with these plans

That is plausible but not entirely clean, unless you buy the plans. I would reject pricing of a third-party plan whose rights are not clearly with the customer. If you find a company that makes an offer based on such a plan, you know you have a construction partner who is willing to play dirty. Not great either if problems arise – and they always do in construction.
My advice: Forget the idea.

Moreover, we can’t judge whether construction companies can actually do something with an architect’s plans

They can. The architect’s planning is designed to obtain various offers. Basically, exactly what you want.

Which service phases are actually necessary, which are just nice to have?

You need all service phases. The question is only whom you pay for which phase and what you want to do yourself. There is no general recommendation for that. The less you trust yourself and the involved construction companies, the more I would involve an architect who acts on site like your “lawyer.”

It is clear that building a house will be time-consuming, but we are currently in a phase of life where we are quite tightly scheduled. If time can be saved in good conscience, that is already an important criterion for us.

The possibility to spend as little time as possible without endangering the project arises from three parameters:
1. The ability to set priorities and act accordingly (biggest enemies: a) confusing important and urgent, b) lack of discipline)
2. The ability to decide (biggest enemies: a) too little trust in yourself and others, b) fear of mistakes, c) unwillingness to take responsibility for your own actions, d) see point 1 “priorities”)
3. The ability to delegate (biggest enemies: a) mistrust, b) stinginess, c) unclear communication, and d) see point 1 “priorities”)
This has nothing to do with the question whether you involve an architect or not.

The answer, in my opinion, depends somewhat on luck. My parents were only satisfied with the house design after the third architect. Since the first ones were paid anyway, it was definitely more expensive than with the general contractor (GU). If they had gone straight to the third one, the house would probably have been cheaper than from the GU, because the space is not used as efficiently here and you practically have to build "more house" for the same utility. That’s why, in my opinion, everything depends on the quality of the architect, and finding a good one is difficult. Two were recommended to me, but neither even contacted me. On the other hand, friends of mine built with another architect. In the end, he behaved like the planner of the GU and only implemented changes that our friends had basically pre-drawn themselves. He even forgot to raise the house by two steps relative to the garden height, which would have been necessary because otherwise the garden would have been too steep. The somewhat romanticized idea here of an architect to whom you describe your life and who then creates a practical house in which you are happy, and who, if dissatisfied, throws the design in the trash and presents three more, is, in my opinion, rather rare. If you find such an architect, building with an architect is certainly the best option. Unfortunately, you cannot know that in advance because you usually don’t have many options for comparison. Judging by the quality of the answers here, I would guess that disproportionately many good architects are active here. Based on the experience of my friends and family, the chance of getting a bad architect is greater than that of getting a good one.

The decision in my opinion still depends on other factors. For example these:

[*]How difficult is the plot? Flat land with simple development or a hillside with a 10% slope on rock? Maybe also pile foundation in a swamp or only 300 sqm total area? The more complicated the matter becomes, the more likely I look for a good architect. As already mentioned, that is not always easy.
[*]What does the wish list look like and what budget is available for it? I tend to go for an architect from 200 sqm upwards. Also, with 5 kids or >1 million budget, I don’t ring the general contractor.
[*]How individual should the equipment / construction method be? The general contractor tends rather to sell his proven construction method with his known partners. But if you want tiles from Egypt and faucets from Greece, he will probably grumble. Things like oversized windows or smart home can also cause a frown. The architect also has his contacts but will probably just shrug as long as you pay for it.

Whether something will be more expensive or cheaper depends primarily on you. Our experience tends to be that some architects calculate costs worse and in the end it becomes more expensive. The general contractor sells at a fixed price and is therefore more precise. But it can also be the exact opposite, it depends very much on the person. That’s why recommendations are worth their weight in gold. Talk to other builders and have them tell you what characterizes the GCs or the architects.

By the way, there is no off-the-shelf floor plan with either. Those would rather be prefab house companies. But even there, nowadays there is a lot of planning freedom. I only know a few real off-the-shelf houses like the "Incorrigibles" from Heinz von Heiden. From the architect I would still expect more creativity than from the GC employee planner.

we are just at the very beginning of our house building plans – have bought a plot of land, had an initial general conversation with a general contractor and have many questions.

That was already a mistake, and if you repeat it with other providers, the questions will (only) multiply even more. Open another thread starting with the completed questionnaire and a representation of the plot, from which the heights can also be taken. With this or by means of "With or without basement: a rule as a decision-making tool" the vote of the plot regarding the 11ant basement rule can be explored. A lot of money can be buried in a basement – unfortunately also in one that is omitted.

It is a long text that I am writing here, so I am very grateful if you give me feedback.

I summarize your thoughts as follows:
B. You link the independent and provider's own architect with "OR" (instead of "AND");
I. You are ready for a "standard floor plan";
N. You want to talk to 4 masons and 0 carpenters;
G. You want to get other counteroffers with the design from the offer of one of the comparison participants;
O. You fear the companies will try to take advantage of you with inferior equipment.

Shall we now scratch the "dirt" before the "bingo":
B) read on "Bauen jetzt" my "A house building roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!" and follow it in the following steps:
B1. Commission an independent architect with "Module A," at the end of which you have a provider- and construction method-neutral preliminary draft in hand.
B2. During the resting phase of the dough, make the key decisions, i.e., ideally confront three masons and three carpenters with this preliminary draft. I do this professionally, and my main questions aim at an offer 1. exactly of the house shown in the preliminary draft and 2. of a house as similar as possible that the provider has preferably already realized several times (this can be a catalog house, customer house, or promotional house – the type house in the same way as was common forty years ago is nowadays largely extinct).
B3. From the response to this orientation inquiry, derive the indication of whether you then commission your independent architect further with the full "Module B" or only performance phase 3, and whether he now lets the individual preliminary draft mature into a design as a mason or carpenter after the result of the key decision (or instead should adapt a catalog house / customer house / promotional house for you).
I) a "standard floor plan" will only fit if you are a "normal family" 2 adults 2 kids and get along with a single guest-and-office room and have a flat plot of land. For a third child or second home office or the like, the house would have to be enlarged (better lengthened than widened, not rearranged), and on a sloping site the house footprint can shrink as far as (especially also living) space requirements can be met in the basement.
N) by all means involve the fourth mason as well, but not zero carpenters. Ideally, in most cases, three providers from each faction. Too many are just busywork without greater benefit, but one should not exclude a construction method outright from the start. Five to seven, mixed from both construction methods, provide the most practical "image resolution." This has proven itself with me freshly again and again for decades.
G) Observe, as described under B., the strict "separation of powers" between judiciary and executive; one participant should not simultaneously be the benchmark for a comparison. Your preliminary draft from the independent architect creates a clean basis here.
O) At the same location as my aforementioned other foundational contributions you also find explained in "Lightweight walls in solid houses?" and "Plan change: From concrete to a wooden ceiling" why such material choices by no means indicate inferior value.