Solid prefab house or developer - experiences?

The effort; we have little desire and especially no time to constantly argue with the developer and the craftsmen.

The fact that prefabricated houses are "tried and tested" as they have been built several times already, in our opinion, reduces the risks that something fundamental goes wrong.

Here we favor a brick-by-brick construction on site which apparently also exists for prefabricated houses (Hartl?) or at least a construction method based on that which promises sustainability.

I don’t know what you understand by a prefabricated house.

Basically, one should consider whether to build with a general contractor/general entrepreneur (GU/GÜ) or an architect-designed house. In both options, you can build massively as well as with prefabricated construction.

With a GU, you have a work contract with this company. Arguing is fundamentally not necessary at first, but it depends on the nature of the client and the company how errors are handled. With an architect-designed house, you have more individual freedom and can have more influence.

Since that apparently is not desired, one chooses a house provider of their trust and the construction method, either massive or prefabricated construction. Every company has its preferred construction method. By the way, the jack of all trades doesn’t exist – every house is still individually manufactured or built. That should also be a quality feature.

And yes: you should also show up during construction with a GU: it would be a pity to spend several hundred thousand euros without being able to observe the progress and, if necessary, monitor or influence it. That is also the nice thing, to follow the progress. Some write a book about it because this stage in life can be one of the most beautiful.

If that frightens you off, I actually recommend buying a house through a developer, preferably a townhouse in a development where this house is built 50 times. There you have no influence but buy a house on a plot with a contract. But in my opinion, that is rather the last option among the possibilities. Just because it has already been built 50 times does not mean all are free of defects.

On the topic of sustainability: there are differences in various construction methods. But you should form your own opinion on that. Timber framing is not necessarily more ecological than stone; stone does not have to last longer than wood... on the topic of energy consumption: you also have to weigh costs to see if one or the other makes sense. The fact is: everything costs money, and that is simply not infinitely available to everyone.

You can also continue to think about what sustainability means. Just because something lasts 100 years does not mean it is more sustainable than something that only lasts 10 years.

Best example: I am pretty sure that a thatched roof is probably one of the most sustainable roofs in our regions, but the lifespan may not be optimal. In contrast, you could, for example, see a stainless steel roof made from a single piece of steel... That will probably survive 200 years. Both are expensive.

There is no such thing as little effort when building a house! Unless you perhaps buy a finished house from the developer and have it inspected for defects by an appraiser you have commissioned yourself. Otherwise, active involvement during the planning and construction phases is required. And of course, building a house is a risk in many respects. The construction company goes bankrupt or makes serious mistakes, unplanned additional costs arise, e.g. in civil engineering, there are legal disputes with neighbors, the construction company, or individual craftsmen, accidents happen on the construction site, and so on. Not everything is insurable, compared to that renting is completely risk-free.

So, in the meantime we have done some more research.

Apparently, we initially saw the world too black and white.

There are actually more options to distinguish (and presumably not even all possibilities):

a) Prefabricated house providers who work with different concepts and materials (wood, Duotherm, whatever) but in the end build the house out of prefabricated parts
b) Solid house providers who also work with different concepts and materials, but in the end really build stone by stone and also already have a predefined set of houses - more or less customizable - in their offer
c) Architect house with max. flexibility which can then be implemented by a general contractor or self-chosen craftsmen however you want

Category a) includes providers like Schwörerhaus or Weberhaus.
Category b) includes providers like Baumeister-Haus, Dennert Massivhaus or Viebrockhaus.

For us, b) now seems to represent the interesting option. We maybe lose some customizability but otherwise get good quality in my opinion and a solid stone-on-stone build and shift many risks and a lot of management to the provider – no, we know that it still remains a demanding and big project.

We don’t seem to have to make any essential compromises on living comfort here; i.e. good indoor climate, good sound insulation, etc. (in my opinion also a point against a prefab house). Energy efficiency also seems quite feasible; healthy living as well.

- Overall: Faster construction time than with c)
- Lower (i.e. not no) risks thanks to proven construction (with coordination of house technology like heating system etc.)
- Still sustainable if the right materials and construction methods are chosen
- Quite good insulation
- House visible beforehand as a show home
- Often purchasable with insurances/warranties for max. security
- etc.

Viebrockhaus makes quite a good impression.

Does that seem comprehensible so far, which doesn’t mean one has to share our preference, and it’s not completely off?

Does anyone know Viebrockhaus or another of the named solid house providers?

Thanks!

I know Baumeister, they are also here. It is actually an association of medium-sized construction companies, so Baumeister, who together have designed and calculated some house types that can then be individualized, and they are now offering them. You basically build a house that has been tested nationwide with a local company. Friends of ours live in one like that and were very satisfied with the construction and quality. Karsten

The house is not unique and has been built multiple times; that means many aspects have already been tested. Therefore, in my opinion, it must necessarily be the case that a custom build carries a higher risk of problems - which of course does not mean that any must occur...

I know Baumeister, they are here as well. It is actually an association of medium-sized construction companies, so master builders, who jointly design and calculate several house types that can then be individualized, and now they offer them. You are practically building a nationwide tested house with a local company.

By now, practically every custom-built house is also unique. Non-uniques are practically only found in developer row houses. The classic "standard house" as a complete drawer-full of construction plans where you just moved some non-load-bearing walls has been "extinct" even at Baumeister for more than twenty years. What still exists (and still does: implemented several times in this or a very similar way) are "building proposals," on which people nowadays orient themselves much more freely, i.e. more as inspiration rather than a base model. Even in prefabricated houses, "made to measure" has largely displaced the catalog design. There are a handful of bestsellers both among the "building proposals" of solid construction providers and among the "models" of the prefab house makers.

What remains valid is the justification of the thought "they have tested that a hundred times - so it surely works with a lower probability of defects." Yes, that is true. But today no longer for a "standard house" but related to the contractor’s routines. Meaning: do not order a Ytong house from an experienced Poroton processor and vice versa. Also, leave the contractor with the ceiling system he always uses; and his customary roller shutter boxes, etc. If he always builds a 100 cm knee wall, then be aware that a 150 cm knee wall results in completely different connections to other components. If you want wooden steps and he always installs marble on concrete, or knee-wall interior walls in the attic and he always does drywall there, then pick another contractor.

The lower probability of defects depends far more strongly on the practiced combination of materials and construction methods - I would not recommend the usual floor plan with an unfamiliar stone. Many solid house providers have building proposals in their portfolio with which they reproduce, for example, the plans of a Hebel kit house using Poroton ETICS. I consider that nonsense. Yet the individually planned customer houses of such providers often make a solid impression. Good providers (and their verifiable references) are often found in the region. I consider cooperation partners of the Baumeister group (but not exclusively) a good choice. Their currently biggest competitor is probably Heinz von Heiden. Viebrockhaus and Gussek Haus are popular in the better-earning segment, similar to Weberhaus and Schwörerhaus among the prefab builders. A solid package and well-designed (thus often only implemented with slight modifications) base models can be found in my view at Massivhaus Mittelrhein. The most comprehensively checked model range among prefab builders is currently Bien-Zenker, but I currently have no assessment of customer satisfaction. In particular, I have read in forums several times very moderate enthusiasm from builders regarding the contract architects of Heinz von Heiden and Bien-Zenker — sometimes concerning planning services but also concerning construction management.