ᐅ Comparison Between Architect and General Contractor or Turnkey Construction

Hello everyone,
as is well known, general contractors or construction companies offering turnkey houses usually charge a certain percentage of the house price (in my experience 10-15%) for taking over the warranty, the risk of cost increases, site management, coordination of trades, and so on. The costs for an architect are in a similar range, but in my opinion they also offer additional advantages such as tendering the trades, independent site supervision, and ensuring that exactly what was planned in the design is carried out. A disadvantage might be that you don’t have a fixed price. Therefore, my question is: why would one choose to build with a general contractor? Am I missing something?

Thank you very much and best regards
Fabian3000

Essentially, it is a comparison between flexibility and fixed price.
A general contractor (GC) provides everything from a single source (at a fixed price), both during construction and for warranty issues (and you can also have a house designed by an architect built by a GC).
An architect offers a fully customized approach (not at a fixed price) with a variety of different trades.

Fabian3000 schrieb:

So why should you choose to build with a GC?

See above.
By the way, a GC house is often less expensive than an architect-designed house. This is not because the GC offers particularly low prices (although that can also be the case nowadays), but because you have so many options with an architect (even during the construction phase). Since people often want many costly extras and upgrades, the architect-designed house tends to get a reputation as the most expensive house. This depends on the client, not the architect.

Fabian3000 schrieb:

So my question is: why should someone choose to build with a general contractor (GC)?

I counter with a question: why opt for an architect-designed house without a fixed price guarantee plus the tedious process of preparing and evaluating various bids, when you can have the house built exactly as you want it through a GC, potentially at a lower cost?
This discussion comes up here every two weeks.

First of all, thank you for the responses.

Regarding your counter-question: In my opinion, the advantage of an architect-designed house, as mentioned above, is mainly that you would have an independent and detailed site supervision. Additionally, by tendering the trades separately, the overall cost could potentially be lower (assuming the fees for the general contractor and the architect are roughly the same). General contractors usually work with the same subcontractors and rarely compare prices. If this discussion has come up before, could you provide me with one or two links? I haven’t been able to find any discussions on this topic.

Fabian3000 schrieb:

assuming the "fee" from the general contractor and architect are roughly the same

That becomes difficult. Because that’s where the difference lies: a proven standard house, a production home that has been built for 20 years and is now almost free of defects, with a minimal fee share. Or a custom-designed architect’s house that naturally always involves high planning costs.

Fabian3000 schrieb:

General contractors usually work with the same companies anyway and don’t really compare prices.

They do conduct tenders with "their" companies just as architects do with "their" companies.

The significant difference is in custom home building as well as more extravagant home features.

Fabian3000 schrieb:

If this discussion has come up before, can you give me one or two links,

Unfortunately not. My memory doesn’t archive that. But the search function is at the top right.

Sorry for the late response, but in our case, we already have architectural plans that we want to implement, meaning the general contractor needs to build according to those specific plans. I am now considering how to proceed after phase 4. So, I’m assuming my understanding is correct, right?

I’ll start looking for related discussions.