Prefabricated house: first architectural planning and then selection of prefab house provider, or the other way around?

Catalog houses are regularly not reducible; if they are larger than desired, it is therefore better to take a smaller model and extend (not: widen!) it.

Thanks for the tip, I’ll go look for a suitable catalog house then...

Did you choose Weber because they still have their headquarters reasonably close by in Rheinau? (In that sense, BZ in Schlüchtern would be closer).

We had 4 providers in closer consideration (after internet research & recommendations), Wolfhaus and Fingerhaus dropped out during the process, Schwörer and Weber are still interesting, Weber being significantly cheaper, therefore the current favorite.

And the technical room confuses me: didn’t you write that it is not on the outer wall?

In the Schwörer draft it is inside, I have only shown the current Weber draft here.

Currently 110 km from the construction site, are you possibly not far from me (Rhine-km 610)?

We currently live in Roßdorf and are building in Harthausen.

I would recommend a construction supervisor anyway, no matter how reputable certification seals the house providers display. And especially given the distance to the construction site. I’d be happy to find you a contractor around LU/MA.

We gladly accept recommendations!

Are the children already a reality? - and are the estimates regarding your mother’s visits based on habits that will still apply after moving 110 km?

The children already exist :-) and my mother hopefully still wants to visit her grandchildren (and her daughter) when I live near my in-laws...

What I strongly recommend, however, is this:
The exterior dimensions should be pretty much final. So: length, width, height, roof shape. Fine-tuning after completion is fine. If a few interior walls are shifted, that's not a big deal for many providers.

No, the exterior dimensions must be clear before signing, that is also certain for us.

There was a recent conversation about this where I shared my experience. Let’s see if I can manage with the link: Short summary: We started similarly at first, then went the architect route and have not regretted it. Financially, it has also been a gain so far. But since the house is not built yet (construction is starting soon... finally...) I can’t draw a final conclusion yet.

You probably wanted to link there in your post #8 .

I would rather start with directly fitting floor plans or take smaller floor plans and enlarge them as needed.

Good in the wheelbase (ridge length), not in the track width (gable width) (because then you structurally jump out of the modular system).

We gladly accept recommendations!

I am happy to make a decision point for you, just follow the instructions on my house construction schedule (see post #3).

PS: Our house will not win a beauty contest. But there is no house like it in that area.

I have to say that I quite like exactly that, namely houses that look "ordinary" or plain from the outside but are stylishly designed inside with taste and recognizable style. We had very few requirements in the BP and after some initial planning detours, we quickly and deliberately decided on a simple rectangular building with a gable roof and made a lot of effort inside to make it really nice for us. In this respect, you still have 100% of the possibilities; it is rather that I don’t like houses where individuality is forced with "violence" (bay windows, special dormers or gables (formerly half-hipped roofs ufff.) are often used).

Thank you :)

I made a quick draft again,

Did you forget the attachment?

I have to say that this is exactly what I like, namely houses that look "ordinary" or plain from the outside, but are stylishly designed inside with taste and recognizable style. We had very few specifications in the BP and, after some initial planning excursions, quickly and deliberately decided on a simple rectangular building with a gable roof and put a lot of effort into making the interior truly beautiful for us. So you still have 100% of the options; it's more that I don't like houses where individuality is forced on them (commonly bay windows, special dormers, or gables are used (formerly half-hipped roofs ufff.) at all.

Thanks! Well, uh. Honestly, I would rather give the house less individuality. The combination of building structure + roof just doesn't look quite harmonious. In my opinion, the proportion of roof to building is off. It looks as if the house either needed a steeper roof (which is not allowed), or to cut about half a floor (which is also not allowed). So it reminds me of a Monopoly house stretched upwards. (Most houses have this problem though; except for a few multifamily houses, where the larger base area makes the roof appear harmonious to the wall height again.) We will make it nice inside instead. And try to break up the tall walls with terrace, entrance canopy, and so on.