Property with expansion house experiences

That is the purpose of a construction manager, to oversee the house construction.
He is not an expert who saves you from trouble.

If I build on my own and pay a construction manager, then he supervises the construction in my interest, I would expect him to keep an eye on flawless execution. The project manager of a developer has different goals, as rightly put it:

that defects only break through after the warranty period due to the filler

Of course, a reputable company is interested in its good reputation. It is not the first goal to cheat the builder. But in doubt, the saying "Finders keepers" applies. So the builder has to pay for the bread.

Thank you already for the feedback.

Does it really belong to the company? - the keyword "short sale" in the search helps with this.

There is a GmbH that owns the property and another GmbH that takes over the shell house. Both companies belong to an overarching GmbH. The property is known. Therefore, there are two contracts. One contract for the property and one for the shell house.

I bought a house in about the described condition. Not specifically under the designation "shell house," but it was offered in that condition. The seller would also have completed it if I had commissioned him.
I hired a construction manager who coordinated and supervised the completion. He "arranged" the companies, supervised the construction, checked the invoices...
In the end, it cost more than originally estimated, about €1000/sqm, to name a figure. Standard without any special goodies.

Thank you very much for the information. Did you involve the construction manager who coordinated the completion directly from the beginning in the planning, or only after the start of construction of the "shell house"? Did he prepare the cost estimate for the further trades?

Thanks!

Of course, a reputable company is interested in maintaining its good reputation. It is not the primary goal to take advantage of the builder. But in case of doubt, the saying "Wes Brot ich ess..." applies. So the builder has to pay for the bread.

The general contractor simply pays their site manager to prevent reductions in their profit caused by complaint rectifications. How well they succeed by avoidance or how long it takes before undiscovered defects appear is secondary. The attitude dreamed of by the builder, to monitor quality as if building the first house for themselves, will only be fulfilled by a site manager hired by themselves. This can also be an expert; in my opinion, however, no one generally conducts a score better than the composer, which is why I prefer architect-site managers.

The plot is known. Therefore, there are two contracts. One contract for the plot and one for the shell house.

Then the good news is that it is at least not an empty sale – but the bad news is that real estate transfer tax must also be paid on the building – in this case, of course, not on the interior finishing services. If the provider adheres to the two-company cheating theory, then they are not reputable and do not deserve to do business with you. The tax offices are structured in such a way that the trick cannot work even in the middle of nowhere (or only through illegal actions by the builder).

Did you involve the site manager who coordinated the completion directly from the beginning in the planning or only after the construction had started on the "shell house"? Did he prepare the cost estimate for the remaining trades?

Thank you!

The house was built by the seller up to the "walls and roof" stage. After that, it was on the market for a longer period. Neither I nor my site manager had anything to do with the first construction phase.

Originally, the seller offered to complete the house, and the later site manager was supposed to provide professional supervision for me, because I did not trust myself to do it (completely justified, by the way!). After some research on the seller, I decided not to continue working with them.
The site manager then contacted companies, obtained quotes, etc. In this way, a budget for the completion was established. When it became clear that it would stay within the financial scope, I made the final purchase. Afterwards, the completion began under my own management, supervised and coordinated by the site manager.

Is that clear now?

Yes and no - offering only the shell (plus) is not just a niche, but also quite a lucrative scheme. [/QUOTE] Why scheme? Projects of this kind have also been offered to us and I would be interested to know what the general contractor’s motive is for offering such a model. Warranty issue?

Why a scam? We have also been offered projects of this kind and I would be interested to know what the motivation of the general contractor (GU) is to offer such a model. Is it a warranty issue?

Warranty, yes, also: the finishing trades conceal a lot of the shell, which naturally means that defects only become visible with delay. But you can counter this by having your own expert conduct a shell inspection. The simple trick is rather that it is much easier to make money on the shell: although the finishing work is fiddly and time-consuming, and actually involves more added value. However, the shell disproportionately contributes to the builder already being able to "recognize a house." In addition, many finishing trades are ones that renovation workers or even tenants have dealt with before and feel more confident about, enabling them to benefit from price competition more easily. Taken together, these two aspects lead to the builder underestimating the potential of the finishing trades and ultimately being willing to pay more for the shell than it actually contributes to the overall house. If you specifically focus on the "penny-pinchers" and offer "shell only" or "only minimally expanded shell," it is easier to make money than on the shell part of a complete house. There is no easier prey than "price-conscious" smart alecks. Simply put, a builder earns better on the complete house with higher-end fittings (and the target group is higher-end fittings), and better on the shell only (plus) with frugal fittings (and the target group is bargain hunters).