ᐅ Solid prefabricated house or developer-built home – experiences?
Created on: 26 Dec 2016 11:53
A
AnNaHF79
Hello,
we are still at the very beginning of our building project, but since such an investment needs careful consideration, we want to gather information early on and exchange ideas with experts. We have already researched a lot online, especially here in this forum, and have ordered some of the literature recommended here and elsewhere.
One basic question we are currently considering regarding solid prefabricated houses:
a) Prefabricated house
b) Prefabricated house in solid construction
c) Solid construction (through a developer)
We do not want to build cheaply, but well.
Sustainability is important to us; what we build should last a long time and still be standing in 100 years (in my opinion, a point against a traditional prefabricated house).
Living comfort is equally important; that means good indoor air quality, good sound insulation, etc. (also, in my opinion, a point against a traditional prefabricated house). Energy efficiency matters to us as well.
Healthy living conditions are also a priority.
Above all, we want low risks and minimal effort.
What discourages us about solid construction through a developer is:
The effort involved; we don’t have much desire and especially no time to constantly argue with the developer and the contractors.
We want to award a project and hope that everything then simply runs smoothly – of course, it probably will not be that simple, certain efforts will inevitably arise, but we want to keep these to a minimum. A manageable construction period without major risks would be very welcome.
The fact that prefabricated houses are "tested," having been built multiple times, reduces the risks in our opinion that something fundamental will go wrong.
Based on the above, we wonder if a prefabricated house in solid construction might be the right choice for us, as it combines the best of both worlds?
- Fast construction time
- Low risks due to proven building method (including coordination of building services such as the heating system, etc.)
- Still sustainable if the right materials and construction methods are chosen
- Good insulation
- House can be viewed as a show home beforehand
- Often available with insurances/warranties for maximum security
- etc.
What is your view on this?
If this could be a viable path, the question arises what the right materials and construction methods would be, and which providers might be suitable...
Materials:
- Clay (expanded clay)
- Brick (Unipor/Poroton)
- Aerated concrete (Ytong)
- Clay bricks
- Sand-lime bricks
- “Special stuff” like Duotherm (reinforced concrete?), Klimapor, Ökodomo, etc.
Clay bricks and sand-lime bricks seem to have rather poor thermal insulation.
Clay bricks also tend to absorb water.
Therefore, I would rather exclude these options.
Construction method:
We favor a traditional “brick-on-brick” construction on site, which apparently is also available for prefabricated houses (Hartl?), or at least a construction method based on this that promises sustainability.
Any experiences or tips?
Thank you.
we are still at the very beginning of our building project, but since such an investment needs careful consideration, we want to gather information early on and exchange ideas with experts. We have already researched a lot online, especially here in this forum, and have ordered some of the literature recommended here and elsewhere.
One basic question we are currently considering regarding solid prefabricated houses:
a) Prefabricated house
b) Prefabricated house in solid construction
c) Solid construction (through a developer)
We do not want to build cheaply, but well.
Sustainability is important to us; what we build should last a long time and still be standing in 100 years (in my opinion, a point against a traditional prefabricated house).
Living comfort is equally important; that means good indoor air quality, good sound insulation, etc. (also, in my opinion, a point against a traditional prefabricated house). Energy efficiency matters to us as well.
Healthy living conditions are also a priority.
Above all, we want low risks and minimal effort.
What discourages us about solid construction through a developer is:
The effort involved; we don’t have much desire and especially no time to constantly argue with the developer and the contractors.
We want to award a project and hope that everything then simply runs smoothly – of course, it probably will not be that simple, certain efforts will inevitably arise, but we want to keep these to a minimum. A manageable construction period without major risks would be very welcome.
The fact that prefabricated houses are "tested," having been built multiple times, reduces the risks in our opinion that something fundamental will go wrong.
Based on the above, we wonder if a prefabricated house in solid construction might be the right choice for us, as it combines the best of both worlds?
- Fast construction time
- Low risks due to proven building method (including coordination of building services such as the heating system, etc.)
- Still sustainable if the right materials and construction methods are chosen
- Good insulation
- House can be viewed as a show home beforehand
- Often available with insurances/warranties for maximum security
- etc.
What is your view on this?
If this could be a viable path, the question arises what the right materials and construction methods would be, and which providers might be suitable...
Materials:
- Clay (expanded clay)
- Brick (Unipor/Poroton)
- Aerated concrete (Ytong)
- Clay bricks
- Sand-lime bricks
- “Special stuff” like Duotherm (reinforced concrete?), Klimapor, Ökodomo, etc.
Clay bricks and sand-lime bricks seem to have rather poor thermal insulation.
Clay bricks also tend to absorb water.
Therefore, I would rather exclude these options.
Construction method:
We favor a traditional “brick-on-brick” construction on site, which apparently is also available for prefabricated houses (Hartl?), or at least a construction method based on this that promises sustainability.
Any experiences or tips?
Thank you.
AnNaHF79 schrieb:
The effort; we have little desire and especially no time to constantly argue with the developer and the craftsmen.AnNaHF79 schrieb:
The fact that prefabricated houses are "tried and tested" because they have been built multiple times reduces, in our opinion, the risks that something fundamental might go wrong.AnNaHF79 schrieb:
Here we prefer a traditional masonry construction on site, which apparently also exists for prefab 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, you should consider whether to build with a general contractor/general builder (GC/GB) or to commission an architect-designed house. In both options, you can build in a solid way as well as using prefabrication.
With a GC, you have a contract for work with this company. Arguing is generally not necessary at first, but whether disputes arise depends on the nature of the client and the company and how they handle mistakes. With an architect-designed house, you have more individual freedom and can exert more influence.
Since this apparently is not desired, one chooses a house supplier they trust and their preferred method of construction, either solid masonry or prefabrication. Every company has its favored construction method. By the way, there is no all-in-one solution—every house is still individually produced or built. That should also be considered a mark of quality.
And yes: even when building with a GC, you should make an effort to visit the construction site during the building process. It would be quite a dilemma to spend several hundred thousand euros without being able to observe the progress, possibly check the work, or influence it. That’s also the beautiful part—following the stages of the build. Some even write a book about it because this phase in life can be one of the most wonderful.
If that deters you, I actually recommend buying a house from a developer, preferably a townhouse in a development where this house is built 50 times. In that case, you have no influence but buy a house with land based on a contract. In my opinion, however, that is the last option among the possibilities. Just because a house has been built 50 times doesn’t mean all of them are free from defects.
On the topic of sustainability: there are differences between construction methods. But you should form your own assessment. A timber frame is not necessarily more ecological than masonry, and masonry is not necessarily more durable than wood... Regarding energy consumption: you also have to weigh whether one option makes more sense. The fact is: everything costs money, and that is not unlimited for everyone.
T
toxicmolotof27 Dec 2016 15:12You can also continue to think about what sustainability really means. Just because something lasts 100 years doesn’t necessarily make it more sustainable than something that only lasts 10 years.
A good example: I’m quite sure that a thatched roof is probably one of the most sustainable types of roofing in our climate, although its lifespan may not be ideal. In contrast, you could consider a seamless stainless steel roof... that will likely last 200 years. Both options are expensive.
A good example: I’m quite sure that a thatched roof is probably one of the most sustainable types of roofing in our climate, although its lifespan may not be ideal. In contrast, you could consider a seamless stainless steel roof... that will likely last 200 years. Both options are expensive.
M
Marvinius27 Dec 2016 19:14There is no such thing as low effort when building a house! Unless you buy a fully completed house from a developer and have it inspected for defects by an independent expert you hire yourself. Otherwise, active involvement during the planning and construction phases is necessary. Of course, building a house carries various risks. The construction company might go bankrupt or make major mistakes, unexpected additional costs can arise, such as during groundwork, there may be legal disputes with neighbors, the construction company, or individual contractors, accidents can happen on the building site, and so on. Not everything can be insured, and compared to that, renting is completely risk-free.
So, we have done some more research in the meantime.
It seems we initially saw things too black and white.
Apparently, there are more options to distinguish between (and probably not even all possibilities):
a) Prefabricated house manufacturers who work with different concepts and materials (wood, Duotherm, or whatever), but ultimately assemble the house from prefabricated parts
b) Solid brick-and-mortar house manufacturers who also work with different concepts and materials, but really build stone by stone, while offering a predefined set of houses that are more or less customizable
c) Architect-designed houses with maximum flexibility, which can then be built either through a general contractor or selected craftsmen in whatever way you want
Category a) includes manufacturers like Schwörerhaus or Weberhaus, for example.
Category b) includes manufacturers like Baumeister-Haus, Dennert Massivhaus, or Viebrockhaus, for example.
For us, category b) now seems to be the most interesting option. We might lose a bit of customization but otherwise, in my opinion, get good quality and a solid stone-by-stone build, shifting many risks and much of the project management onto the provider—though we know it remains a demanding and large project.
We don’t think we have to make essential compromises on living comfort here; meaning good indoor air quality, good sound insulation, etc. (In my opinion also a point against prefabricated houses). Energy efficiency also seems feasible, as does healthy living.
- Overall: Faster construction time than with category c)
- Lower (though not zero) risks because of proven construction methods (including coordination of building services like the heating system)
- Still sustainable if the right materials and building methods are used
- Quite good insulation
- The house can be viewed beforehand as a show home
- Often available with insurance/warranties for maximum protection
- And so on
Viebrockhaus makes a pretty good impression.
Does this sound reasonable so far? This doesn’t mean you have to share our preference or that it isn’t off the mark.
Does anyone know Viebrockhaus or any other solid brick-and-mortar manufacturers mentioned?
Thanks!
It seems we initially saw things too black and white.
Apparently, there are more options to distinguish between (and probably not even all possibilities):
a) Prefabricated house manufacturers who work with different concepts and materials (wood, Duotherm, or whatever), but ultimately assemble the house from prefabricated parts
b) Solid brick-and-mortar house manufacturers who also work with different concepts and materials, but really build stone by stone, while offering a predefined set of houses that are more or less customizable
c) Architect-designed houses with maximum flexibility, which can then be built either through a general contractor or selected craftsmen in whatever way you want
Category a) includes manufacturers like Schwörerhaus or Weberhaus, for example.
Category b) includes manufacturers like Baumeister-Haus, Dennert Massivhaus, or Viebrockhaus, for example.
For us, category b) now seems to be the most interesting option. We might lose a bit of customization but otherwise, in my opinion, get good quality and a solid stone-by-stone build, shifting many risks and much of the project management onto the provider—though we know it remains a demanding and large project.
We don’t think we have to make essential compromises on living comfort here; meaning good indoor air quality, good sound insulation, etc. (In my opinion also a point against prefabricated houses). Energy efficiency also seems feasible, as does healthy living.
- Overall: Faster construction time than with category c)
- Lower (though not zero) risks because of proven construction methods (including coordination of building services like the heating system)
- Still sustainable if the right materials and building methods are used
- Quite good insulation
- The house can be viewed beforehand as a show home
- Often available with insurance/warranties for maximum protection
- And so on
Viebrockhaus makes a pretty good impression.
Does this sound reasonable so far? This doesn’t mean you have to share our preference or that it isn’t off the mark.
Does anyone know Viebrockhaus or any other solid brick-and-mortar manufacturers mentioned?
Thanks!
I know master builders, they are here as well. It is basically a network of medium-sized construction companies, meaning master builders who have jointly designed and costed several house types that can then be customized, and they now offer these. So, you essentially build a nationally tested house with a local company. Friends of ours live in one of these and have been very satisfied with the construction process and quality. Karsten
AnNaHF79 schrieb:
The house isn’t unique and has been built several times before; meaning many aspects have already been tested.
In my opinion, it’s therefore essential that a custom build carries a higher risk of problems – which naturally doesn’t mean issues must occur… Nordlys schrieb:
I know Baumeister; they’re here too. It’s basically an association of medium-sized construction companies, meaning builders who jointly design and price several house types that can then be customized, and now they offer these. So you’re practically building a nationally tried-and-tested house with a local company. Nowadays, almost every custom home is unique. Non-unique homes are practically only found in developer-built row houses. The classic “standard house” as a complete set of fixed plans where only non-load-bearing walls were shifted has been “dead” even for builders like Baumeister for over twenty years. What still exists are (still repeated or very similarly executed) “design proposals,” but today these serve more as flexible inspiration rather than set base models. Even in prefab houses, “made-to-measure” designs have largely replaced catalog models. There are a handful of bestsellers both among the “design proposals” from solid-build providers and the “models” from prefab manufacturers.
What remains valid is the justification for the idea that “they have tested this a hundred times already – so it surely has a lower probability of defects.” Yes, that is true. But today this applies less to a “standard house” and more to the builder’s routines. In other words: don’t order a Ytong house from an experienced Poroton block builder and vice versa. Also, let the builder use the ceiling system they are accustomed to, as well as their usual roller shutter boxes, etc. If they always build knee walls 100cm (40 inches) high, be aware that knee walls of 150cm (60 inches) will connect differently to other components. If you want wooden stairs and they always install marble on concrete, or knee wall interior walls in the attic but they always use drywall there, then choose another builder.
The lower risk of defects depends much more on the established combination of materials and building methods – I wouldn’t recommend a familiar floor plan with an unfamiliar type of block. Many solid-build providers offer design proposals where they then try to replicate the plans of a Hebel kit house with Poroton exterior insulation. I consider that nonsense. However, the individually planned custom houses from such providers often still make a solid impression. Good providers (and their verifiable references) are often found locally. Partners of the Baumeister group, in my opinion (though not exclusively), are a good choice. Their current largest competitor is probably Heinz von Heiden. Viebrockhaus and Gussek Haus are popular in the higher-income segment, similar to Weberhaus and Schwörerhaus among prefab manufacturers. A solid package and well-planned (that is, often only slightly modified) base models can, in my view, be found at Massivhaus Mittelrhein. The most thoroughly developed model range among prefab builders currently seems to be at Bien-Zenker, though I have no current assessment of homeowner satisfaction there. In particular, I have read multiple times on forums about rather limited enthusiasm from homeowners regarding the contract architects of Heinz von Heiden and Bien-Zenker – partly concerning planning services, but also construction management.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics