Planning by general contractor or independent architect?

There is a lot of pigeonholing at play. There are employees at the general contractor who really get involved, but there are also architects who only deliver standard work. I know several who ended up managing the construction themselves because the architect was never on site.

Nordanney describes the theory that in practice it usually looks different, and he probably knows that very well himself.

You first have to find an architect who can draw the wishes out of you, and the real problem is already clear from the last sentence. Nordanney may have built 5 houses, but most people build exactly one in their lifetime. Where is the experience and self-confidence supposed to come from to say to the architect "Sorry, that won't work" the reply "Yes, it will, that's how I want it, and if you can't do that, then I'll find someone else..."

Most then say "Oh, that won't work? Okay, then we'll forgo it..."

Where is the experience and confidence supposed to come from to respond to the architect who says "I'm sorry, that’s not possible" with "Yes, it is possible, that’s how I want it, and if you can’t do that, then I’ll find someone else..."

Honestly? If I’m building a house for half a million and then don’t have the cojones, I feel sorry for the client. For every TV and every phone you find forums and reviews online and people get informed until they can’t anymore. And with a house, you just give in and a) don’t confidently state your wishes yourself or b) take everything as God-given?
I’d know 500,000 hard-earned reasons why I would be confident.
Anyone who approaches it like that is just naive.

Nordanney describes the theory that in practice it usually looks different, he probably knows that very well himself.

Practice usually looks very positive. But yes, of course there are also bad apples everywhere.

Most then say "Oh, that doesn’t work? Well then, we’ll do without..."

If I have three preliminary talks and three times hear that my wishes can’t be implemented like that, then I start to think.

The architect only contacts the craftsmen he frequently works with, or from the region.

The architect does what I, as his breadwinner, assign him. And when he puts his three top craftsmen into the ring, I take the tender he created (which I paid for) and give it to the craftsmen I know, those known by acquaintances, and those I might have found regionally based on good reviews.

The architect takes exactly "his" trusted friends only when it is expected entirely as his sole service. He knows from them that Jürgen is the better pastry maker, and Thomas the better bread baker – and thus also who fits best for the respective specific construction project. If the client wants a singing or shooting brother in the team lineup, it’s best to tell the architect, who then brings him in. A parallel tender by the client is nonsense: each trade / contract has the most appropriate number of bidders to request, an excess benefits no one.

For the craftsmen, it is a huge effort to participate in such a tender.

It’s exactly the other way around: for the craftsman, the greater effort is to participate not in a professional tender but in an amateur bidding casting.

Usually, only those craftsmen who really see a chance of getting a contract participate in the tenders... These are the craftsmen with connections to the architects.

And again, it’s exactly the other way around: amateur bidding castings are regularly poorly prepared (i.e. only questions afterwards reveal how far communication misses the point of what it’s really about). Additionally, they are inefficient "occupational therapies" because amateurs think it wise to create large bidding competitions (and not play with open cards about when they want an offer and when actually a counter-offer or control offer is needed). The bidder directly approached by the client must therefore reasonably expect that his effort will not be based on a reasonable probability of contract. Every self-employed person keeps his employees in work and bread with contracts (and/or not with writing offers). Naturally, one prefers to spend overtime on qualified offers for accredited solid requesters rather than gathering offers from leisure sportsmen.

From our experience, the architect first plans as he usually builds his houses or what he considers right. If you then want something else or have different ideas, it is difficult to enforce or you have to take care of many things yourself.

Your house, your rules. The resting time between service phases 2 and 3 – and thus long before phases 6 and 7 – is also the right time to part ways with an architect of the kind "poor listener" or "I, your highness expert versus you clueless worm" before the actually service provider but rather self-fulfiller builds "his" instead of "your" house. And vice versa: if you consider yourself the better building materials test magazine reader, then discuss it with your architect – you can only win from it!

In practice, it usually looks quite positive. But yes, of course there are also black sheep everywhere.

Given eighty million national coaches, the "phenomenon of hubris" among building clients is probably no less common than among architects. Many flat-screen TV consumers truly know more than the salesperson actor and firmly believe this is the case in every field. "My name is Lohse, I shop here."

If I have three preliminary talks and three times hear that my wishes are not feasible that way, then I start to think.

That can happen to you with the architect as well as with the general contractor – whether renowned (bad word) or with an inconspicuous species.

And when it comes to the house, do you just give in and a) don’t assert your wishes confidently or b) accept everything as given?

Or you are simply confidently unpretentious.

Anyone who approaches it that way is simply naive.

No, it always certainly depends on what you expect for your situation and your life or what requirements you place on your house.
Whether just simply investing your money better than in rent, just taking advantage of the financial possibilities that lead you mathematically to your own house, a plain normal home for the family, and so on. I wouldn’t see it all so generally as described here.
Most people don’t discuss their house construction, their LEDs, or their finances in forums. For most, the house construction is part of their life with other ups and downs. They go to those who have also built for acquaintances or friends and mostly everything runs in full satisfaction. Most don’t care whether they get a concrete or steel stringer staircase. The main thing is to get upstairs. Many do not deal at all with the Insta influencer must-haves and do not develop a need for pharmacist drawers under the stairs, a pantry, or even a children’s bathroom. And in that sense, they are very confident and happy with their affordable standard execution. But they are certainly not naive, rather they focus on other things in their lives that are more important to them. The house is a means to an end. And if it no longer fits, the house is just as well sold as the one where you tore your hair out with worries.

Actually, I just wanted to write something about this rather unfounded post, because it is full of errors and misconceptions:

A general contractor has the advantage that he takes a lot of work off you. He will suggest many things to you and you can then choose something. With the architect, he usually sends you to his suppliers/tradesmen to choose. There you can select the things yourself. That is more work, but if you have your wishes, nicer. But that is very exhausting to make so many decisions yourself. In addition, architects also have only a limited number of suppliers/tradesmen and also tend to certain building styles. Often one has to take care of individual things oneself if one does not want to pay a fortune to the architect.
The advantage with the architect, on the other hand, is that you usually have more time to decide and can also change many things afterward. With the general contractor/house building company, you plan everything "short-term" and at some point it will be built quickly...

A general contractor does not take work off except for the offer "from a single source with one signature." Whoever wants something extra in terms of work or service has to pay for it and: has to demand it independently. Otherwise, you only get the contractually regulated service.
The general contractor will not suggest many things, only a few samples on pallets: sampling partly with little choice, but then also free choice among suppliers and exhibitors/tradesmen in sanitary, tiles, and so on.
Decisions always have to be made regarding equipment. That a layperson in construction decides how this or that is executed structurally is dangerous and practically hardly feasible.
There is always enough time except when you build a prefabricated house on order.
You do not pay a fortune to architects either.
You can also change many things with the general contractor. A change process arises when you as the client are on site and do not discuss statically relevant options. And that would be short term – with the general contractor as well as with the architect.
"and at some point it will be built quickly..." Hehe...

I can only advise to think beforehand about what you want and need and what is financially feasible. And if you have some general contractors around you, then see whether they can implement a reasonable standard that matches your own ideas, possibly also in terms of quality. The same applies to architects, because they also "use" the same regional tradesmen as the regional general contractor of the neighboring house. The employed tradesmen work for their boss in the craftsman’s business and not for general contractor x or architect y.

We have here a good example where a cheap house with a dusty and old construction specification is pimped up to a showcase house.
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/angebotsuebersicht-und-bauleistungsbeschreibung.48939/

You will probably get a cost-equivalent house with a provider of better quality, but then reasonably because already included in the equipment.
And the countless upgrading options that you would have with an architect’s house are no use if the finances do not allow it.
And even an architect’s house with refinements usually does not happen without trouble: the best or most prominent example may be the Meziani family in 2016 (he known from Rote Rosen), who had several legal disputes – naturally to mention also the great trouble they had with their house construction.

There is simply no general answer to quite open questions.

Where is the experience and self-confidence supposed to come from to tell the architect who says "Sorry, that’s not possible" the opposite: "Yes, it is possible, that’s how I want it, and if you can’t do that, then I’ll find someone else..."

You don’t need experience to work well with an architect. Self-confidence helps, of course. What helps even more is having order in your own head and knowing what you really want. From this order, you can ask purposeful questions and, together with the people who have the expertise and experience, develop solutions – including new ones. Afterwards, you only have to decide, which, with order in your head, is not very difficult. Many clients want to build a house and have not really dealt with the question "for what exactly." Just two questions that few ask themselves and even fewer ponder for a longer time: What kind of feeling of life do I want to experience in the house? What are my basic needs and inclinations that architecture can support? If someone has answered these questions, they can set priorities and communicate purposefully with the architect. And only in this way does an architect have the chance to develop the best house within the given budget framework for the client. An architect who loves his profession will be happy about a catalog of non-functional requirements and thus a deep knowledge of his clients and will "rather" work on the project than on a "cookie-cutter client" who cannot contribute anything substantial to a design except "I like it" and "I don’t like it." Those who do not have order in their head or, after dealing with their wishes, find that a standard is just right for them, are very well served with a standard plan. These are proven functional and fit many. However, often the decision to buy an already built house is the better one.