Prefabricated wooden house provider for single-family homes in Lower Saxony

I read the schedule on your blog 2023 for the first time.

Ah yes, at that point the basic series was already complete (finished) and also already available under the current address. Unfortunately, I can only advance the work on the "Reloaded" episodes slowly; the day-to-day business with current advice seekers takes precedence, and the shortage of skilled workers is postponing the vacation of the solo fighters, the editor of the Barthel eBook has gone into "partial retirement"... hopefully the association will be up and running by spring.

Our "dough resting period" was perhaps a bit too long at 6 months, but we were/are satisfied with the result of the draft so far.

Six (to eight) is indeed the right number, but the unit behind it should be "weeks." The result should not gather dust (or even rust or mold) again. That is the problem that men lack the sense of time for pregnancy processes and hence have to be substituted by calendars. The result needs its leap to the next maturity stage (and by the way, time is money, inflation is not stagnating).
Consultants have schedules like specialists, so it’s best to register immediately after the first ultrasound on the daycare waiting list. The current pre-conversations will come into play in May, I do not know the backlog length for the colleagues, but I suspect a similar order of magnitude. Last but not least, the economy is picking up again with the general contractors, which also plays a role. Waiting leisurely for the upcoming government formation would not be a wise idea. The motto "Build now" is no coincidence.

I gathered most of my house-building knowledge from Mr. Beuler/Fertighausexperte and am/will currently follow his recommendation: have architects create the design planning, and on this basis have comparable offers from various construction companies created and then evaluated.

The magic word is "comparability," and that only works actively. This means: you have to clearly specify which apples and pears you’re looking for—otherwise you go crazy trying to make the offers "like-named" before you can "recalculate" with them. You can only partially compare the colleague Beuler’s approach with mine (as I recommend to my advice seekers, whether arranged by me or done independently). The essential difference is his focus on the timber builders, which is why he does not need to consider the "switching point" step in the process flow. Accordingly, it follows that his service phase 3 should not wait for the outcome of the first inquiry round as it would with "switching point." Conversely, with my approach, this orientation inquiry round would be "started on the wrong foot" if it were approached not with the preliminary draft, but already with the design. This clashes with the process flow and causes "digestive problems" for all involved. The additional effort is reflected in the processing time (hence the surcharge), and because of the associated dampened work joy, I call it "pain money." In service phase 4—which we are both keen to avoid having to do and pay for twice—our paths meet again.

I have not yet submitted any request. That’s why this thread exists. [...] So maybe we are not yet at a stage where consulting services have to be purchased only with a pain money surcharge?

Oh, of the three mentioned timber builders, you only have an impression from the internet so far and have not yet initiated anything that they might already have offered something on the draft you have? — then, in a process according to my method, there would be no entanglement, and you are welcome to come to me (and especially: work with the mixed handful of candidates). In such cases, I exceptionally work with drafts instead of preliminary drafts (that is maturity stage service phase 3 instead of service phase 2, but I point out again to the interested readers that the latter is not only sufficient but even better suited here). In service phase 3, the architect is already "framed" in terms of construction method, which should be reserved for the outcome of the orientation inquiry round.

So: grab the bull by the horns—alone or advised, but soon. Have you, besides my schedule and basement contributions, also read my local ones on the keywords individual awarding / self-awarding and Gerddieter (as well as those on the Steinemantra and cladding on my blog site)?

Is the basement then inside or outside the thermal envelope? If inside, then you have to heat or basically temper the basement. If outside, is the basement ceiling insulation to the ground floor and the insulation of the staircase descent including insulated door already included in the price?

The offer does not state this explicitly. In my understanding, the perimeter insulation is the essential point if the basement is to be part of the thermal envelope. In my offer, there is the item "139.63 sqm perimeter insulation of the basement exterior walls from the top edge of the floor slab to be supplied and installed in one operation. Insulation thickness 160mm. Design value of thermal conductivity 0.042W/mk" for €12,000. A similar item exists for the insulation below the floor slab (another €9,000). Therefore, I assume that the basement is part of the thermal envelope.

So without interior finishing?! With an interior dimension of 9x11, there are two cross walls that divide the basement into three bare rooms without electricity, flooring, lighting, and doors.

Thanks for the classification! I understand. The basement will be more expensive. We have 5 rooms with just under 30 meters of running interior surfaces. If I calculate about €10,000 each for electricity, flooring, heating + additional interior wall/doors, I come to about €40,000 in additional costs. Is that roughly realistic?

The magic word is "comparability," and that only works actively. That means: you have to clearly specify which hybrid fruits you are looking for – otherwise, you will go crazy trying to make the offers "homonymous" before you can "calculate further" with them. You can only partially compare colleague Beuler’s approach with mine (as I recommend to my advisees whether done by me or themselves). The key difference is his focus on the builders, which means he does not need to consider the step "setting the course" in the process flow. Accordingly, this means that for him, performance phase 3 should not, like "with setting the course," wait for the result of the first inquiry round. Conversely, in my approach, this orientation inquiry round would be "started on the wrong foot" if it is done not with the preliminary draft but already with the design. That then conflicts in the process flow and causes "digestive problems" for all involved.

I am currently trying to understand this: So does that mean the design planning/performance phase 3 basically needs to be tailored to either a timber or masonry construction ("setting the course"), and it is basically nonsense if I inquire about stone houses with my timber design because I receive no or just not comparable offers? Until now, I had assumed that, aside from the tendentially thicker exterior shell of the masonry house, somewhat similar offers would come out.

In the end, despite my initially expressed preference for renewable raw materials, I am not dogmatic there or, as our former finance minister would say, "technology-open" and could live without specific stone vs. timber offers. Elsewhere, it has already been noted that a timber house and full clinker maybe aren't necessarily natural partners either. The only disadvantage remaining for the masonry house is the lack of possible QNG funding.

(as well as those on my blog site regarding the stone mantra and cladding) read

Yes, what I took from that is: "no clinker slips with ETICS" and "don’t interfere with the builder regarding material selection."

The current preliminary discussion participants will get their turn in May; with the colleagues, I don’t know the backlog length but suspect a similar scale.

Very unfortunate, then we will probably have to take the bull by the horns ourselves.

Thank you for the classification! I understand. The basement is getting more expensive. We have 5 rooms with just under 30 meters of running interior surfaces. If I calculate about €10,000 each for electrical work, flooring, heating + additional interior wall/doors, I come to about €40,000 in additional costs. Is that roughly realistic?

The €40k might be enough for the items you mentioned. But you are still missing some items in the basement. Interior walls, screed, plastering, waterproofing of the floor slab? Then you will also need a staircase. I think a few more euros will come your way.

The basement will be more expensive.

I now calculate some of the costs of a basement closer to and higher than the costs of living space.

I calculate €2000 for a basement within the thermal envelope, but in terms of equipment of lower quality than comfortable living space. Lower Saxony is still a fairly cheap building land – there €2800/sqm living space may sometimes be enough. You haven’t said anything about yourself or the inhabitants of the house. So it’s hardly possible to give any advice. For example, I wouldn’t build a hip roof with children, because you don’t have storage space or reserve space. But I’m also not a fan of basements if they can be avoided. I would rather plan the reserve in the attic. Sometimes the development plan doesn’t allow that either. With three or more children, a basement makes sense, provided you can afford reserve space for hobbies and so on. With 650 sqm, a lot is possible. I’m allowed to say that, we built these 650 sqm with over 100 sqm footprint and a large front yard. There’s still enough garden left. If you have a house design, you can request it in both solid construction and prefabricated construction. There will be some modifications later, but every construction company does that. Both can be energy-efficient. In which district is the build planned?