ᐅ Planning by a general contractor or an independent architect?

Hello everyone,

We are at the very beginning of our house-building plans – we have purchased a plot of land, had an initial general discussion with a general contractor (GC), and have many questions.
This is a long text, so I really appreciate any feedback you can give. For better clarity, I have separated and numbered my questions.

We want to build a turnkey house through a solid construction company. A building surveyor we know recommended four companies in our region with whom he has had many years of good experience. Before purchasing our plot, we talked with an architect from one of these companies about our rough ideas. Since we know many other homebuilders have had good experiences with this company, they will be our first contact when things become more concrete.
However, we are wondering whether we should have the entire planning—including the offer—done by this company first, in order to then get offers from competitors, or if we should initially hire an independent architect and finally present the plans created by them to the construction companies. In any case, we want the offers to be reviewed by an expert, because we might not fully understand the scope of services otherwise.
I know similar questions have been discussed often in this forum, but since it was sometimes in a slightly different context, I would be very grateful if you could share your experiences.

Option 1: Planning by the construction company
The architect from the company we spoke to made a generally serious and competent impression on us. However, we felt that he tried to influence our thought process somewhat. For example, he advised us against having a basement regardless of the plot conditions – with rather weak arguments. We found this quite disturbing and wonder if, in future conversations, he might generally try to steer us away from options that are less profitable for the company. We might not always notice this so clearly, as we did with the basement topic.
Of course, you don’t get such an independent planning as you would with a freelance architect from a company. On the other hand, we wonder if a house planned by a construction company tends to be significantly cheaper than one designed by a freelance architect. Many solid builders deny offering standard “cookie-cutter” houses, but it seems likely that they rely on proven layouts that are economically advantageous for them. So my first question:

1. In your opinion, do clients generally save money if the planning is done by the construction company?
It would be perfectly fine for us to use a standard floor plan that is maybe slightly modified in certain details. We don’t necessarily need a fully custom architect-designed house. However, we do expect honest advice during planning that isn’t driven solely by the company’s financial interests.

A second question related to this:

2. Assuming we let the said company do the planning and then take those plans to competitors: In your experience, would competitors be able to work with these plans and provide an offer, or should we expect to have to completely replan everything with each competitor?
Besides the fact that the latter would be very time-consuming, we also wonder how comparable the offers would be if they were based on different plans.

Option 2: Planning by a freelance architect
We see advantages in the independence of freelance architects but, as mentioned above, we wonder if a house planned by an architect tends to be significantly more expensive than one based on a layout a company has already built many times, with a few modifications.

3. Furthermore, we cannot judge whether construction companies can definitely work with plans from an independent architect or if it sometimes happens that they want to create their own plans before making an offer, which would lead to double effort both in terms of time and money. Since we want to get offers from the four mentioned companies, we are interested in ensuring that none is excluded just because they didn’t do the planning themselves.

4. I have noticed there is often discussion about which service phases of an independent architect to commission when building with a general contractor. Some recommend phases 1-3, while others advise against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually necessary, and which ones are nice to have?

And to conclude:
5. We are wondering which of the two options – 1 or 2 – is overall more time-efficient. Of course, building a house is time-consuming, but currently, we have a tightly scheduled life. If time can be saved in good conscience, that would be an important factor for us.

Many thanks in advance for your answers!

Dino548 schrieb:

The architect of one company,

In the end, they are a salesperson for the construction company. That should never be forgotten. They work for the general contractor and are paid by them.

Dino548 schrieb:

In your opinion, is the client financially better off if the construction company handles the planning?

No, why would the house be cheaper?

Dino548 schrieb:

Assuming we have the house planned by the mentioned company

then either you get a standard, run-of-the-mill plan or you pay extra for custom planning.

Dino548 schrieb:

that competitors could do something with the plans and make an offer

They could, but what would the offer look like? More than one page with really ALL quantities, dimensions, and qualities? To really compare offers, you need a tender prepared by an architect.

Dino548 schrieb:

Whether offers based on different plans are even comparable.

Not at all.

Dino548 schrieb:

We see advantages because of the independence of freelance architects, but as mentioned above, we wonder whether a house planned by an architect is significantly more expensive than one based on a floor plan with a few modifications that a construction company has already built many times.

Ah, modifications. So it’s no longer standard. The further you move away from an off-the-shelf house, the more expensive it becomes. Then new plans have to be drawn, plumbing and electrical systems may no longer fit. Structural calculations will also need to be redone.
Architect = a house designed according to your wishes
Builder at best, if you take the standard house as it is (like buying a suit — if you need longer trouser legs, a smaller waist, etc., it’s better to get a tailor-made one from the start).

Dino548 schrieb:

Besides, we can’t assess whether construction companies can actually work with an architect’s plans

That’s exactly what the plans and tenders are for. The company receives 120 pages with your specifications. They can either meet them and submit an offer or not. If not, then no deal and no customer. The great thing is that these 120 pages, which precisely represent your entire house, go to 4 construction companies. Then you can really compare.

Dino548 schrieb:

I’ve heard there’s often discussion about which service phases you should commission from a freelance architect if you want to have a general contractor build your house. Tobias Beuler & Co. recommend phases 1-3, others strongly advise against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually necessary, which are nice to have?

Check out the posts by @11ant.

Dino548 schrieb:

We’re wondering which of the two options 1 and 2 is more time-saving overall

Forget the question about saving a few months with an investment of 500,000 or more. If you make a mistake at the start, it won’t cost you three months, but you’ll be annoyed for the next 25 years or more because the planning was poor.

Dino548 schrieb:

Is it possible to save time in good conscience

No, not really.

Dino548 schrieb:

For us, it would be completely fine to choose a standard floor plan that might be adjusted in some details. We don’t really need a fully custom architect-designed house. However, we would appreciate honest advice during the planning process, not just guidance driven by the construction company's financial interests.

Reusing existing plans can mean better profit margins for the provider—but I don’t necessarily see this as a real advantage for you. Regarding the quality of advice, I have a slightly different view than @nordanney—it depends more on the individual than on their employment status.

Dino548 schrieb:

Assuming that we have the house planned by that company and then approach competitors with those plans

That might seem obvious but isn’t entirely proper, unless you purchase the plans. I would reject pricing for a third-party plan if the rights are not clearly transferred to the client. If you find a company willing to quote based on such a plan, you know they are ready to play unfairly. That’s not great if problems arise—and there always are issues during construction.
My advice: forget that idea.

Dino548 schrieb:

Furthermore, we aren’t sure if construction companies can reliably work with the plans from an architect

They definitely can. An architect’s design is meant to allow you to get different offers. Essentially, that’s what you want.

Dino548 schrieb:

Which project phases are actually necessary, and which are just nice to have?

You need all the project phases. The question is who you pay for which phases and what you want to do yourself. There is no general recommendation. The less confident you are and the more you trust the involved construction companies, the more I would involve an architect to act as your “advocate” onsite.

Dino548 schrieb:

It’s clear that building a house is time-consuming; however, we are currently in a phase of life with a very tight schedule. Saving time in a conscientious way is therefore an important criterion for us.

The possibility to spend as little time as possible without jeopardizing the project depends on three factors:
1. The ability to set priorities and act accordingly (biggest enemies: a) confusing important with urgent, b) lack of discipline)
2. The ability to decide (biggest enemies: a) low self-confidence and mistrust in others, b) fear of mistakes, c) unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s own decisions, d) see point 1 "priorities")
3. The ability to delegate (biggest enemies: a) mistrust, b) stinginess, c) unclear communication, d) see point 1 "priorities")
This has nothing to do with whether you involve an architect or not.

In my opinion, the outcome depends somewhat on luck.

My parents were only satisfied with their third architect during their house construction. Since they still paid for the first two, it ended up being definitely more expensive than using a general contractor. If they had started with the third architect right away, the house would probably have been cheaper than with the general contractor, as the space usage was less efficient here and they would have basically needed to build a "bigger house" for the same utility.

That’s why, in my view, everything depends on the quality of the architect, and finding a good one is difficult. Two were recommended to me, but neither even got in touch. On the other hand, friends of mine built with a different architect who basically acted like the general contractor’s planner and only implemented changes that our friends had more or less predetermined. In the end, he even forgot to raise the house by two steps to accommodate the otherwise too steep garden slope.

The somewhat romantic idea presented here of an architect who listens to your whole life story and then designs a practical house where you will be happy—and who discards unsatisfactory drafts and presents three new ones—is, in my experience, rather rare.

If you find such an architect, building with them is definitely the best option. Unfortunately, you usually don’t know this beforehand, since you typically don’t have many opportunities to compare.

Judging by the quality of answers here, I would guess that this forum attracts disproportionately good architects. Based on the experience of my friends and family, the chance of encountering a poor architect is higher than finding a good one.

In my opinion, the decision depends on several other factors as well. For example:

• How challenging is the plot? Flat land with straightforward access, or a hillside with a 10% slope on rock? Maybe a piled foundation in a swamp, or only 300sqm (3,230 sq ft) total area? The more complex the situation, the more likely I am to look for a good architect. As @GeraldG already mentioned, this is not always easy.
• What does the wish list look like, and what budget is available? I tend to go with an architect starting at around 200sqm (2,150 sq ft) and up. Also, if you have five children or a budget over 1 million, I wouldn’t call the general contractor (GC).
• How customized should the finishes and construction method be? The GC tends to prefer selling their proven construction methods with trusted partners. If, however, you want tiles from Egypt and faucets from Greece, they will probably grumble. Features like oversized windows or smart home systems can also cause some hesitation. While architects have their own contacts, they tend to shrug off such requests as long as you pay for them.

Whether it turns out more expensive or cheaper primarily depends on you. Our experience tends to be that some architects underestimate costs and it ends up more expensive in the end. The GC typically offers a fixed price and is therefore more precise. But the opposite can also be true; it depends a lot on the individual. That’s why recommendations are invaluable. Talk to other homeowners and ask them what distinguishes the GCs or the architects.

By the way, neither offers ready-made floor plans. That would be more typical of prefab house companies. But even there, today there is a lot of planning freedom. I only know a few “cookie-cutter” houses left, like the “Die Unverbesserlichen” by Heinz von Heiden. Still, I would expect more creativity from an architect than from a GC’s in-house planner.

Dino548 schrieb:

We are at the very beginning of our house-building plans – we have purchased a plot of land, had an initial general meeting with a general contractor, and have many questions.

That was already a mistake, and if you repeat it with more providers, the questions will only multiply. Please start a new thread beginning with the completed questionnaire https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-planung-unbedingt-vor-beitrag-erstellung-lesen.11714/ and a presentation of the plot, including its elevation details. This will allow you, or by using the guide "With or Without a Basement: A Rule as a Decision-Making Tool," to assess the plot’s suitability according to 11ant’s basement rule. A basement can bury a lot of money—unfortunately, also when one is left out.

Dino548 schrieb:

This is a long text I am writing here, so I really appreciate your feedback.

I summarize your thoughts as follows:
B. You connect the independent architect and the contractor’s in-house architect with "OR" (instead of "AND");
I. You are ready to accept a "standard floor plan";
N. You want to talk to four masonry builders and zero timber builders;
G. You want to use the design from one participant’s offer to get counteroffers from others;
O. You fear that the companies will try to overcharge you with inferior quality.

Let’s clear the "dirt" before the "bingo":
B) Read my guide on "Building Now: A House-Building Roadmap, Also for You: The HOAI Phase Model!" and follow it in these steps:
B1. Hire an independent architect for "Module A," at the end of which you will have a preliminary design that is neutral regarding providers and construction methods;
B2. During the "proofing period," make your key decisions by ideally presenting this preliminary design to three masonry builders and three timber builders. I do this professionally, and my main questions are aimed at 1. an offer precisely for the house shown in the preliminary design and 2. an offer for the closest possible variant of that house which the provider has already built multiple times (this can be a catalog house, customer house, or promotional house—standardized models built uniformly as in the past are nowadays largely obsolete);
B3. Based on the responses to this orientation inquiry, decide whether to commission your independent architect further with full "Module B" or only service phase 3, and whether the architect should then develop the individual preliminary design into the final design as masonry or timber construction (or alternatively adjust a catalog/customer/promotional house for you).

I) A "standard floor plan" will only fit if you are a "normal family" (2 adults, 2 children) and are fine with just one guest-and-office room and a flat plot of land. For a third child, second home office, or something similar, the house will need to be larger (preferably lengthened rather than widened, not re-divided). For a sloped plot, the building footprint can be reduced accordingly, as long as (especially living) space needs can be met in the basement.

N) You may include the fourth masonry builder if you want, but not zero timber builders. In most cases, three providers from each group are ideal. Too many providers are just busywork without much benefit, but excluding a construction method outright is not recommended. Five to seven providers mixed from both construction types provide the most practical "resolution." This approach has proven effective for me repeatedly over decades.

G) As described under B, keep a strict "separation of powers" between judicial and executive roles; one participant should not simultaneously be the benchmark for comparison. Your independent architect’s preliminary design creates a clean basis here.

O) In the same place as my other foundation posts mentioned above, you will also find explanations in "Lightweight Walls in Solid Houses?" and "Plan Change: From Concrete to Timber Ceiling," explaining why such material choices by no means imply inferior value.

---

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