ᐅ Planning by a general contractor or an independent architect?
Created on: 14 Mar 2025 13:22
D
Dino548
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!
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!
wiltshire schrieb:
That seems obvious but isn’t entirely proper, unless you purchase the plans. I would refuse to price a third-party plan if the rights don’t clearly belong to the client. If you find a company willing to provide an offer based on such a plan, you know you have a construction partner ready to play unfair. That’s not great if any issues arise – and problems always come up during construction.
My advice: forget the idea. The architect from the construction company didn’t explicitly talk about purchasing the plans, but he mentioned that if we had plans created by him and ultimately chose another general contractor, we would be charged €2000. I assume this practice is quite common? From your reply, I understand that it’s probably not standard to approach competitors with a construction company’s plans? What would the alternative be without involving an independent architect? Would every company we request a quote from create entirely new plans so that we would have to go through the whole design and planning phase multiple times?
N
nordanney14 Mar 2025 23:12Dino548 schrieb:
Would every construction company we request a quote from create completely original plans? Plans, yes. Really thorough work on the plans? No. You’ll just get a draft thrown together. No one is going to do the work of an architect for free.
And always keep in mind: a "plan" usually means just a floor plan. For a house, that is only one piece of the puzzle and doesn’t provide any information about costs. Nor does it say anything about quality or features.
Dino548 schrieb:
Would every construction company we request a quote from create completely new plans, meaning we would have to go through the entire design and planning phase multiple times? I’ll jump in here—I was following earlier but don’t have everything fresh in mind.
Not every construction company or general contractor offers the same services. Usually, it’s the smaller regional ones that will design a custom house for you. However, this is often done with an external architect*, who would need to be paid separately. Most general contractors who promote standard house models usually include only modifications within their own architect’s services. But often, those modifications are enough to create a comfortable living house.
*You can also choose the external architect yourself.
Quotes without a contract are generally only made using a flat rate factor for a standard house model. For example, if you say you want a 160 m² (1,725 sq ft) city villa, you get an offer calculated as 160 times factor y. If you want a 200 m² (2,153 sq ft) three-gable house, you get 200 times factor z as the quote. This always includes the corresponding scope of work description in a standard version.
General contractors have their tables for this. They can also select options like a 3 m (10 ft) sliding door on top or a dormer of 125 cm (49 inches).
Special designs and individual offers are only calculated explicitly after signing a contract.
If you have special requests that are rare, a general contractor is often not suitable because subcontractors usually won’t do it for a bought dumping price. This then affects the quality of construction.
Just as they have their tables, they also have their limits and standards. For example, our neighbor couldn’t build their Heinz von Heiden standard bungalow with an extension longer than 150 cm (59 inches) or something similar.
If you don’t choose a “turnkey standard house” that includes architectural services (i.e., modifications), but explicitly want a “custom-designed” house, you also need to plan a separate budget item for architectural fees.
Furthermore, standard general contractors usually don’t offer expandable roof spaces. Often, this is just assumed because that’s what they usually do.
For example, we had a general contractor with two architects as managing directors. If you chose a standard house, you would usually get more than just minor modifications. Outside the typical building envelope and without retaining the load-bearing wall, there is obviously additional effort in planning.
Not every well-known or national general contractor (or hardly any) takes on the planning from an independent architect. This is because their pricing is based on standard house models. That’s their business concept, and nothing else really fits in.
Regarding quotes and comparisons: it’s tricky. If you want a KfW 40 energy-efficient house as a quote, you’ll get it. But how it is calculated varies individually depending on each general contractor’s preferred wall system. So what exactly do you want to compare?
The general contractor (GC) or main contractor (MC) can be just as unreliable, and usually, you don’t have a familiarization phase or multiple exit points like you do with an architect. Once you have signed with the GC, you are practically bound to them until the end (theoretically, you can terminate early with damages compensation, but this is rarely done because it is usually impossible to find someone who will take over another contractor’s inferior work including warranties, do it properly, and stay within the original budget).
Anyone can be a GC or MC! No qualifications are required. I could go to the local business authority on Monday and register a construction business. I could either work as a main contractor, gather all the specialists, add 20% markup everywhere, and build your house. Or I could do the flooring, doors, and windows myself (there is no master craftsman requirement) and rightfully call myself a GC.
With the keyword Fleischerhaus, there is a thread in which a non-specialist GC was involved. The original poster fought her way through building her semi-detached house with blood, sweat, and tears, went through several contractors and lawyers, and to my knowledge is still waiting to recover money from the first wrongdoers.
My main contractor, a civil engineer who even received a partial recommendation here on the forum, proved to be incompetent (he called himself a property developer, although he was not one), not very customer-focused, and unreliable (he did not keep his promises). His subcontractors ranged from reasonably competent but rigid and inflexible to grossly incompetent (e.g., missing overlap measurements in masonry). Additionally, there was a heating engineer who ended the collaboration in a diva-like manner because I asked too many questions (fortunately in the end, since he also did poor work at my neighbor’s).
My experience may be extreme, but I would never build with a GC/MC again or recommend it to anyone (including myself), unless you have known each other personally for years or are family and trust each other completely (and even then, I would think very carefully). In other words, only in a relationship where you can rely on the person to fix any subcontractors’ or their own workers’ mistakes at their own cost if necessary, and never to deceive you even slightly. Then I would consider building with or recommending that person as a GC/MC.
Anyone can be a GC or MC! No qualifications are required. I could go to the local business authority on Monday and register a construction business. I could either work as a main contractor, gather all the specialists, add 20% markup everywhere, and build your house. Or I could do the flooring, doors, and windows myself (there is no master craftsman requirement) and rightfully call myself a GC.
With the keyword Fleischerhaus, there is a thread in which a non-specialist GC was involved. The original poster fought her way through building her semi-detached house with blood, sweat, and tears, went through several contractors and lawyers, and to my knowledge is still waiting to recover money from the first wrongdoers.
My main contractor, a civil engineer who even received a partial recommendation here on the forum, proved to be incompetent (he called himself a property developer, although he was not one), not very customer-focused, and unreliable (he did not keep his promises). His subcontractors ranged from reasonably competent but rigid and inflexible to grossly incompetent (e.g., missing overlap measurements in masonry). Additionally, there was a heating engineer who ended the collaboration in a diva-like manner because I asked too many questions (fortunately in the end, since he also did poor work at my neighbor’s).
My experience may be extreme, but I would never build with a GC/MC again or recommend it to anyone (including myself), unless you have known each other personally for years or are family and trust each other completely (and even then, I would think very carefully). In other words, only in a relationship where you can rely on the person to fix any subcontractors’ or their own workers’ mistakes at their own cost if necessary, and never to deceive you even slightly. Then I would consider building with or recommending that person as a GC/MC.
Tolentino schrieb:
I might be leaning toward an extreme based on my experiences I share this "extreme" view because, despite visible references and a generally friendly attitude, ours ultimately had very little expertise and repeatedly failed with the planning software he used as a civil engineer for his design work. I won’t even start listing the severe incidents, but in reality, you get "trapped" at some point, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was even more unpleasant. Time and again, we were brushed off with the concern that he or one of his subcontractors might just quit—and these were all small, local craft businesses he worked with.
The plumbing and ventilation were terrible, with no coordination with the designer; he had no understanding of the equipment, so it was constant phone calls to the respective hotlines, and settings were always left on "auto." I literally had to rescue a bricklayer, hanging between beams and drunk (supposedly due to a circulatory issue...); I clearly developed a "grain allergy." Too many windows, then too large, then after cutting, too small. In the end, we had to find subcontractors for him because supposedly none had time. In our local development area, everyone else was months ahead and felt sorry for us. Enough.
This doesn’t have to happen, but it can, so there probably isn’t a perfect standard for building. The electrician was really very good—I mean that sincerely—but he actually canceled appointments with us 25 times, not an estimate. Now that we live in the beautiful house, most of those problems are gone, but back then, a few times we seriously considered giving up ourselves.
Similar topics