ᐅ Floor plan of a 172 m² bungalow in Brandenburg, south of Berlin

11ant schrieb:

Should this sentence provoke me? – after all, prefab / solid construction and architect or construction manager are not opposites, but can be successfully combined (as I have actually mentioned quite often).

Definitely not to provoke. I probably phrased it a bit imprecisely.

My point was more that some people wonder whether to work directly with a general contractor, while others prefer to start or even work entirely with an architect. The fact that everything can be designed and executed so individually is good in one way, but it certainly makes the decision-making process more difficult for someone without experience. After some research, my wife and I now feel more comfortable starting with an architect.

Regarding solid/prefab construction, these are mutually exclusive. As I said, I’m a layperson. I always thought the distinction was either a prefab house or a solid house built stone on stone (with or without external thermal insulation composite system – ETICS / external wall insulation).

cryptoki schrieb:

Architects’ schedules are sometimes fully booked more than 12 months in advance. A single-family house just isn’t very profitable; their calendars are filled with multi-family buildings and public projects, which are much more lucrative. For a single-family home, an architect has to invest a lot of time for a relatively small profit, and the clients tend to be demanding as well. That’s the current situation. Finding a good architect who is willing to take on a single-family house project right now is quite rare and difficult.

Good luck.

Thank you very much. Two architects have now responded positively and want to talk with us. I think the workload can vary from region to region. Both are architects who primarily focus on single-family homes.

Sorrow87 schrieb:

Thank you very much. Two architects have now also responded positively and want to discuss with us. I think the demand can vary from region to region. Both mainly focus on building single-family homes.

Maybe we can exchange messages about this via PM. We are located very close to each other regionally, and unfortunately, our experiences have not been as positive. 🙁 Thank you.

Let's put it this way: building with architects is like having a tailor-made suit for your home. Most people don’t have the income or the need for tailor-made solutions. Good ready-to-wear options are often sufficient. And those are the prefabricated houses.

Sorrow87 schrieb:

There is no combination possible between solid construction and prefab. [...] I always thought the distinction was between either a prefab house or a solid house built brick by brick (with or without external thermal insulation composite system).

That’s why you’re here, to learn something ;-)

“Solid” and “prefab” are marketing buzzwords used by manufacturers. The adjective “solid” is meant to emotionally suggest that only a masonry house could have allowed the three little pigs to resist the big bad wolf. The term “prefab” is a retort used by timber frame panel builders, ironically referring to the few weeks between delivering the wall panels and the arrival of the moving truck.

The cheap trick of doing most of the shell construction off-site, out of sight at a secret location (Jean Pütz would have said: “I’ve already prepared something there”), can be done not only with timber frame panels but also with precast concrete panels, expanded clay panels, or even brick-by-brick construction using porous bricks.

“Solidity” simply means that the material is “solid” throughout—strictly speaking, this applies even more to solid wood houses (not to be confused with engineered lumber) than to masonry with porous bricks (because of their hollow chambers) or aerated concrete (basically a rigid foam). Homeowners are private buyers driven by emotion, and salespeople know how to exploit that. Objectively, no construction method is a savior—but neither is it a disaster.

My personal amusement over the apprentice joke of pimping up load-bearing interior walls as if they were exterior walls, using a “Wonderbra” principle, is assumed to be known here. By the way, the wall design of a typical timber frame panel “prefab” house could be described in marketing jargon as an “integral insulation system,” since it essentially includes insulation between the studs.

The wheel has not become any rounder over the millennia; if you put aside the emperor’s new clothes, you’re basically always building the same simple house, even if it’s the “Nikolaus house” or the “Nikolaus Diestelmeier house” from the savings bank ad. Versions 2.0, 4.0, Superior Enhanced Blue Turbo: all smoke and mirrors—the core truth always comes from the same modular system, whether arranged horizontally or vertically. The job of marketing is just to obscure the fact that industrial products are ultimately made with the same basic ingredients.

cryptoki schrieb:

Maybe we can exchange ideas about this via PM sometime.

You’re familiar with a relay station, of course.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Myrna_Loy schrieb:

Let's put it this way: building with an architect is like a tailored suit for homes. Most people don’t have the income or need for tailored suits. Good ready-to-wear clothing is often sufficient. And those are prefabricated houses.

Is that really the case? I don’t see any clear trend indicating that building with an architect is more expensive. I often hear that with smart planning and when the homeowner knows what they want, and the build isn’t extravagant or overly luxurious, it can be no more expensive—or even cheaper—than building without an architect.

Maybe this is because many people hire architects when they want expensive upgrades, a high level of customization, and costly materials. My feeling is that the market is simply so opaque that it’s difficult to make definitive statements here.

When I read such sweeping claims, I’d like to see solid, well-founded arguments that convince me.