11ant
2024-08-21 19:30:07
- #1
What’s wrong with the general contractor (GU) if you like a standard floor plan that has been built, tested, and optimized hundreds of times? I saw the floor plan, liked it, and signed. Fits.
If you like a construction proposal that has been built, tested, and optimized many times by exactly the GU of your choice, in my opinion that is a fortunate circumstance to be thankful for and appreciate. The construction proposal doesn’t have to be "standard," just built many times by this GU. And of course that only applies to GUs who undertake at least the shell construction with a fixed team – so not to "mailbox GUs" who hire a different shell subcontractor for each project or even cast day laborers. Even a model often built from the Meier catalog but built by Müller would then naturally be a premiere again, and accordingly without the advantage of series production.
However, the local original poster (TE) has given no reason to assume that they want to implement a catalog model of their preferred GU (and also with this GU). Therefore, there is concern that they might want to develop an individual plan with the drafting assistant of the GU. I would advise against that, as well as against using a catalog model merely as loose inspiration. A "catalog model (except possibly for shifted non-load-bearing walls unchanged)" is, in my opinion, the gold standard in terms of "quality assurance through quantity and continuous series refinement," followed by "catalog model with wheelbase – not track width! – enlarged." What can sometimes also produce a good bungalow is a two-story catalog model with the upper floor omitted. For anything that goes beyond the scope of a catalog model, I definitely recommend an independent architect.
A catalog model with a gable roof instead of a hip roof is also safe to use, or as cuts a corner off a catalog model and chooses the roof pitch a notch steeper.