With whom to plan/build a single-family house?

In any case, all three providers want about 500,000 to 550,000 euros net for a turnkey house with approximately 160 to 180 sqm of living space and a double garage (whereas with one of them the garage basement is not even included).

Hi, are you sure it’s NET?
That would be 600-650 gross...
Seems a lot to me – maybe gross? Research that again, that would already be the first saving for you...
Best regards GD

Such a consideration always seems questionable to me because nobody knows what will be in 30 years and who among you might become frail... especially on a hillside property

I do not find that questionable at all. It really depends on how you implement it. We have designed our house to be age- or disability-friendly with very few adjustments. Our house can adapt in the coming years to our life with and without children, with and without work, with or without physical impairments, with or without higher income. If you take this into account in the architecture from the start, it is possible to integrate this requirement in a way that there are no significant practical compromises – except for some additional costs, of course. If you only consider the classic solutions where age-appropriate living is retrofitted into a design later, it’s easy to become skeptical.

The building must feel good, and for that it is simply enormously important to be convinced of the general contractor.

I see it exactly the same way!

Hi, are you sure that it is NET? That would be 600-650 gross... Seems like a lot to me – maybe gross?

With the net budget of 500 - 550k € = gross 600 - 660k €, you don’t have to stretch yourself in every detail, but you also must not lose yourself in all wishes.

He knows the development area very well, as he has already built several houses there. Everyone we spoke to had very positive things to say about the company. Our contact person is the co-owner and also the construction manager, so we already know who we will be dealing with

That would be a very strong reason for Massiv2.

The architect who works for them took the trouble to look at our plot. He also made us aware of many structural and legal issues

And that is a very strong reason for Holz1.

In the end, I would let my gut feeling decide. Back then, I was very stuck on solid construction and didn’t even seriously inquire about timber builders. But from what I see at the neighbor’s, a wooden house can definitely be very, very high quality.

Ask yourself the following question: With which company could you most likely find a constructive solution if a dispute arises during the construction period?

My gut feeling: Better a solid house than a wooden house from a cheap provider, if there is no price difference. That protects against nasty surprises when reselling. But with mid-range to high-end offers with correspondingly high-quality materials, wood or solid construction is basically a matter of taste.

I do not find that questionable at all. It really depends on how you implement it. We have designed our house to be easily adapted to the needs of the elderly or disabled with very few adjustments. Our house can adapt in the coming years to our life with or without children, with or without work, with or without physical impairments, with or without a higher income. If you take this into account in the architecture from the beginning, it is possible to integrate this requirement in such a way that there are no significant practical compromises—apart from some additional costs, of course. If you only rely on the classic solutions, where age-appropriate living is retrofitted into a design afterwards, it’s easy to become skeptical.

Of course, it is good to think about it beforehand. I just don't understand why so many—often very young—homebuilders believe that it is a great solution to squeeze themselves into a mini office in old age and leave the other one or two floors unused. There are also other options, such as stairlifts or, in the case of a sloping site, ramps, for example. Or moving again later in life to a bungalow, a nice city apartment, etc.

A solid house no longer deserves the name nowadays. Due to energy efficiency, more air than stone is used in construction. Therefore, I consider wooden houses to be at least equally high-quality, perhaps even better. We still built solidly because it is more common in our region and the value stability is significantly higher.

First of all, my compliments for the exemplary presentation :-) Apart from the fact that we would also like to compare four designs here: I would not compare four candidates on the basis of four designs (keyword apples/. pears comparison), but at least compare the two Steiner and the two Holzer among themselves crosswise as well, i.e. ask each about his price for the house of the other.

Intuitively, we both think that solid houses are of higher quality (which nowadays depending on the provider is probably only a prejudice?),

That is completely correctly recognized that this is only a prejudice. Incidentally, the "small" wood builders have fans (mostly for building-biological reasons), which also affects the reputation of the products secondhand. Do the two Steiner and the two Holzer each build "the same" as the other (i.e. not monolithic ./. ETICS or timber frame panel ./. solid wood)?