Who has built with an architect? Experiences??

Then you have - perhaps unconsciously - already decided to cooperate with an architect, because with a classic contract for general contractor (GU/GÜ) you won't be able to include these "acquaintances" nor remove both trades from the contract.

That’s not necessarily true. As is often the case: it’s not just black or white. For large companies that build more than 100 houses a year, that can apply. But it doesn’t apply to everyone.
Example: With our developer, we can remove almost any trade and replace it with our own craftsmen. We are currently discussing having someone else do the excavation and digging work and even store it elsewhere, which is absolutely no problem. We simply get the costs credited back. The whole process is very transparent.
I don’t see any advantage for the architect here. We will build turnkey with a local developer who has a great reputation. They are somewhat larger, building 50-60 houses a year, but still small enough to accommodate such requests.

My neighbor is building with a two-man outfit, and that works too. Although that certainly isn’t a representative example. But the fact is, it works! It depends on your developer.

This also applies to the topic of construction supervision/management. Let me tell you, most architects don’t want to deal with stress with the craftsmen either, because you meet again on the next construction project. The architect we last spoke to was on a first-name basis with most of the craftsmen... is that good or bad? Furthermore, I dare to doubt whether an architect focused on design and aesthetics really has the technical experience to recognize every construction defect.

If that is important to you, you can additionally safeguard yourself when building with a developer through the Association of Private Homeowners or something similar. They then handle the acceptance of the construction. It costs a few € (about €2000 including contract review and construction acceptance), but the architect charges more than 10 times that...

For me, there is only one clear argument in favor of the architect: individuality in design. But whether that is always practical is another matter. I often see with architect-designed houses that the garage has been pushed into the house. We were told that today this is energetically nonsense due to thermal bridges.

And just for comparison: for €40,000 more, we would have gotten 70 m² less living/usable space with the architect, with comparatively lower equipment! As for the architect making it cheaper or offering better equipment for the same money, I want to meet that architect... we spoke to seven. None, truly none, was cheaper or at least offered the same performance for the same amount. To make their calculations work, they are also happy to talk you out of the basement... especially here in southern Germany, building without a basement would be a huge loss of value. Southern Germany is basement country. Whether that makes sense is another question. The fact is, there is demand. But only this way could the architects show us enough living space for the money at all.
Forget the myth of the cheap architect...
There are certainly good ones, no question. But with architects, it’s like in a restaurant: whether the food tastes good and the price/performance ratio matches, you only know afterward...

Hope it helps!

Example: With our developer, we can almost remove any trade and replace it with our own craftsmen. At the moment, we are discussing having the excavation and digging work done by someone else and also storing it elsewhere, which is absolutely no problem. We simply get the costs credited. The whole process is very transparent.

Then I will rephrase ...

WE, as construction supervisors, would not allow this - aside from retroactive EL* - and consequently would waive the tempting work contract. Over the years, I have had too much trouble with this kind of "musical chairs" to not be able to do without it.

For this kind of removal of trades to work with a general contractor, a separate acceptance - before the foreign company's work and after completion of the work - must be carried out each time. Nevertheless, in the worst case, legal disputes repeatedly arise, as a result of which the main contractor is held responsible; legal protection or not. As a reminder to myself not to waver in my decision, I always keep the relevant folder with these collected "experiences" in sight of my desk; including expert opinions by court-appointed experts that we bear no fault in the disputed proceedings.

I can somewhat understand your reservations about hiring an architect, even if not to the last consequence. Because there are people in this profession who understand their craft very well. You can also find examples of this here in the forum! So please don’t paint all architects with the same brush.

What I will never understand, however, is that clients - mostly absolute laymen - believe they can intervene in the process of a construction project. For every imaginable construction method and processing, there are companies that specialize exactly in this customer request; architects above all. Nevertheless, quite a few prospective clients try to force their idea of house building on a specialist with a different focus. I have often wondered whether they also tell their dentist which anesthesia to use.

*Retroactive EL means that with the start of the EL of our clients, the contractual relationship is also ended.

Rhenish regards

Thanks to both of you now for the answers related to my case.

, your assessment could very well be correct. If this is the case.

It would probably also be important to say that in our case neither a prefabricated house nor a house delivered turnkey is desired. As already mentioned in another thread, a solid house with partial own work is planned. Whether this plays a role again and possibly leads to a decision, I do not know.

I, like often with vacation reviews, do not put too much faith in these review sites, since you never know who or what is being accused by another. My personal assessment and opinion.

When rating architects or construction companies, one mostly listens to word of mouth and puts the most trust there. Of course, with one or the other company you certainly appreciate the quality but maybe also have to pay for it.

Update: "now Epis' further comment came in my reply"

, does that also count when building a "non-prefabricated house" or a "house not handed over turnkey"? If I may finalize the term retroactive EL again, do you mean EL that are still added during the construction phase or have always been known?

I think as a layperson one may also see the advantages and disadvantages of architects and general contractors quite differently than experienced people. As a layperson one may assume to be independent with an architect, to have a free reviewer at hand or an unbiased person on the side.

Of course, it can be an advantage or disadvantage if the architect, as in the example above, addresses the employees of other companies. But I would not classify that as negative, rather he knows, like a general contractor, what the individual employees can perform and whether one can rely on them or not. With larger companies that of course will not be the case.

Does this also count when building a "non-prefabricated house" or a "house not handed over turnkey"? If I may finalize the term retroactive EL once again, do you mean EL that are inserted during the construction phase or have always been known?

Retroactive EL means: by default, in our case, the painting and flooring work is not covered by the BB, but can be purchased at any time. If a builder decides not only to carry out the painting and flooring work, but for example also the drywall trade in EL, our contractual relationship ends at the moment the drywall trade would take over. This means that the tile trade, sanitary and fine electrical installation as well as the installation of interior doors would no longer be included in our scope of delivery.

Of course, it can be an advantage or disadvantage if the architect addresses employees of other companies informally as in the example above. But I do not see this as negative either; he knows, as does a general contractor, what the individual employees can perform and whether one can rely on them or not. In larger companies, of course, this is not usually the case.

I address many architects/experts/building supervisors/craftsmen informally – do they therefore deliver substandard work prematurely? I find this constructed connection quite absurd.

Regardless – whether house construction via architect/general contractor/general planner/site supervisor, I always recommend involving external expertise for the gut feeling; four eyes see more than two (no reputable provider will oppose this customer request). Often this – initially quite present to-do item – fails due to costs, for which there is alternatively the odd gimmick to muster. Most of these characterized builders then believe to find their salvation in forums; there help is – importantly – free. Unfortunately, they often forget that without an on-site inspection or even knowledge of the complete construction file, real assistance can rarely be provided. And – as so often in life – the old adage applies that buying cheap = buying twice = buying expensive.

Rhenish regards

EL retroactively means: by default, the painting and flooring work is not covered by the BB with us, but can be purchased at any time. If a client decides not only to carry out the painting and flooring work, but for example also the drywall trade in EL, then our contractual relationship ends at the moment when the drywall trade would take over. This means that the tile trade, sanitary and electrical fine installation, as well as the installation of interior doors would no longer be included in our scope of delivery.

Aha, okay, that perfectly clarifies the question. So a retroactive EL would really be fatal. Because the additional work resulting from it can hardly be performed in EL in most cases.

There is nothing more to add to the second part. I see it the same way and one will probably never know for sure whether it would have worked better with one party or another.

As a layperson, the decision whether architect or construction company is very difficult at first, or rather, on which criteria one bases such a decision (should base it). The comparisons and advice from parents and clients from a few years ago can naturally become obsolete over time.

As a layperson, the decision whether architect or construction company is initially very difficult or depends on which criteria one makes (should make) such a decision.

Why fixate so rigidly on 2 alternatives; there is a 3rd option: the best of both. Freelance architects are usually far more creative than permanently employed planners in the providers' companies. Architecture created in such a way – not only suitable for the plot – can be realized by any construction company/general contractor of your choice. Rhineland greetings