Turnkey, solid house construction company wanted in the Stuttgart area

The biggest problem is the conflict of interest. In this case, you are not the client, but the general contractor (GU). And then planning may be done in such a way that little effort or construction costs arise. For example, that’s how I ended up with an insulation overhang instead of a frost skirt, something I wouldn’t do again in hindsight.

That can occasionally happen, but the main conflict of interest is that the GU wants to reach the point as quickly as possible where he can release the brakes in terms of personnel and machine deployment planning. It hits him hard if the whole thing is delayed because the client wants the fifth façade layout change visualized first. That the client pays extra for the few hours of drafting doesn’t really comfort the GU. Clients always think architects differ only as differently talented floor plan designers. But this part of their work is actually just the foam on the (fairground) beer.

Since you emphasize turnkey. That can mean all sorts of things and can signify a different status depending on the provider.

Usually clients essentially mean by this that, following the real slogan of "one visit, all in," they don’t want to have to worry about coordinating the tradespeople for all trades. I should probably make an explanatory video about how a GU works. Very few people actually perform all the construction trades themselves (and the few who do are usually also working as general contractors in parallel, which regularly leads to delays).

Thank you for your help!

otherwise you should also have remembered to make the construction method decision (regardless of whether and which preference you have) not before the dough resting phase.

I read that, I just made the decision for us to want to build solidly ;-). On the one hand, we simply don’t like wooden houses aesthetically as much as solid houses, and on the other hand, I am operating under the (possibly debatable) assumption that solid houses are more likely to retain their value in the long term. (assuming that the targeted "solid" quality standard fits into our budget)

Since you emphasize turnkey. That means all sorts of things and can mean different statuses depending on the provider. You should also find out in advance whether you still want to lay floors, wallpaper, and paint yourself or possibly add something to the house building price.

Here I mean keys into the front door, installing the kitchen, furniture in, done. For that, I also ask every general contractor what they understand by turnkey and then communicate what I expect from it — we’ll see if we can manage that. Fermo and U-Haus would offer that including site cleaning, I haven’t gotten more feedback yet.

In the next few days, I have two meetings with architects who make a good impression (and we have a reference from friends here and we like their house very much). It remains exciting.

I have only made the decision for us to want to build with solid construction

That is basically okay, but it should be based on the correct information, otherwise you restrict yourself from many possibilities from the start.

On the one hand, we simply don’t like wooden houses visually as much as solid houses

Prejudice 1
You can’t see that just by looking (as a layman). Plastered is plastered. You don’t necessarily have a wooden facade there to admire or detest. On the contrary, that is usually even an extra that costs extra (ironically also often in solid construction houses).

On the other hand, I am sitting on the assumption (up for discussion) that solid houses are more value-stable in the long run.

Prejudice 2
Yes, that generally shouldn’t be the case nowadays (for new builds), but it can’t be ruled out that some bank or insurance actually sees it that way.
When reselling, it is actually still the case because private buyers have the same assumption.

Assuming the desired "solid" quality standard fits our budget

Prejudice 3
This is by far the most frequently debunked misconception in practice. Solid construction is not more expensive than wood (timber frame) construction as such. For a while, it was actually the other way around, it might have been briefly like that due to higher energy prices about half a year ago, but by now the pendulum has probably swung back again.
In the end, many other factors decide more about the final price and less the main material.

Here I mean keys in the front door, install kitchen, furniture in, done.

That is basically not a protected or standardized term, but in my opinion “schlüsselfertig” (turnkey) usually means for most general contractors/general contractors that walls and flooring are still missing, outside it is a sand desert possibly with hills of replaced earth...

What you want is commonly rather described as “bezugsfertig” (ready to move in), although here as well usually the outdoor facilities are regularly excluded.

Is the necessary cash available? To build ready-to-move-in for the Champions League, of course with high-end fittings... in the Stuttgart area you can actually quickly expect around 3,000-3,500 EUR/m²...

I read 200m², I read basement... you’re almost approaching a million. Without land.
For 500,000 EUR at 4.4% the monthly payment is already around 2,500 EUR/month...

If there is a stalemate at the end of the preliminary round of requests for proposals, one can always leave the decision to one's subjective preference. Only a stubborn attitude of "don't bother me with facts" can lead to having to give up your seat for colleague Joe Biden. I have had expertise in the matter for only forty years, but when it comes to visually diagnosing whether a house is made of stone or wood, I am still wrong about once in every eight cases. If you can improve my handicap, I would gladly undergo further training with you.

I would also be curious to find out at what point you would give in: for example, if you got thirty square meters less for the same money? Both construction methods are equally expensive with equivalent equipment, and with any deviation from the witch house cube (and even more so in the more upscale KfW fat levels), the game tends to shift towards "Advantage: Wood." This is said, mind you, by a stone-named consultant who fully satisfies the Building Energy Act. Also consider my Stone Mantra within a construction method.

Die nächsten Tage hab ich zwei Gespräche mit Architekten die einen guten Eindruck machen (und eine Referenz von Freunden haben wir hier und das Haus von denen gefällt uns sehr gut).

Can you give us a clue about what makes them "make a good impression": so two architects each built a house for a pair of your friends that you like very much (only visually, or also with the budget compliance seal from )?

due to the correct information situation

What is the "correct information situation"?

with which they make a "good impression":

It is all as opaque as many service industries. Of course, I only have the one reference each (where I assume that a house we consider nice and that also fits our price range according to our acquaintance was not a one-hit wonder of the architect) and the website with other built projects we like externally. Now you have to talk to the architects and see if it "fits." The main work is supposed to be done by the general contractor.
Do you have architects in the Stuttgart metropolitan area or what are your criteria on the basis of which you would recommend an architect?

definitely does not always have a wooden facade

Yes, the image of the wooden boards has stuck. Good to know.

actually should no longer be the case nowadays (for new buildings),

So you would say, aside from the subjective perception of potential buyers, that wooden houses built to a comparable standard have the same or lower maintenance costs / same durability as stone houses? Has this ever been analyzed statistically/scientifically? I only ever find "opinions" on the internet.