ᐅ Prefabricated house: should you start with an architect’s design and then choose a prefab provider, or the other way around?

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

I’m starting to wonder if it might be smarter to first do the planning with an architect we pay ourselves, and then get quotes from prefab house manufacturers to implement it?

The first question concerns life priorities. How do you want to live? Four key questions are essential:

1. What does a particularly good day look like?
2. Which routines happen frequently, which are important, and which arise from hobbies, preferences, or personal traits?
3. What do we find aesthetically appealing?
4. What role does our "ego" play in the building process—what do we actually want to satisfy there?

Reflecting on these questions is not easy, even for people who have lived together for a long time. The initial answers are often incomplete and do not reveal what truly lies beneath. However, once you have a high level of clarity there, it becomes clear whether a standard solution will meet your goals or if a custom design would be better.

For custom design, starting with an architect is much smarter and also logical in sequence. When gathering quotes, I would recommend visiting local carpenters and including them if they make a good impression.

With a standard design, you don’t need a separate architect; you can simply choose an existing standard from a provider (but then limited changes can be made).

Custom design is usually more expensive because most people tend to add up all their wishes. But it can also be cheaper if the focus during implementation is on consistently reducing to the essentials and intelligently simplifying things.

Unfortunately, most future homeowners begin by thinking in terms of rooms, square meters, and costs, developing their wishes accordingly. They focus more on the “what” than the “why,” often relying on learned behaviors and transferred desires—“this is how it’s done (these days).”

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Style direction – What is meant by this here?

There is often a style direction specified in the development plan, usually for regional reasons. Here, I also see an indirect one, namely set by the 33-degree roof pitch you mentioned. A townhouse is not desired, nor is a flat-roof house like in the Bauhaus style. The roof pitch requirement means you have to build in a regional style. Apparently, a different development plan with a steeper roof pitch applies across from you. In our northern region, roofs are typically 45 degrees or even steeper.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Conservative or modern construction – What is meant by this?

Well, similarly, it refers to whether you want to build in a conservative/traditional or modern/contemporary way. Lifestyles and people planning to build are very individual, including their age, though there are many slim 30-year-olds who want to build conservatively, while 60+ often prefer modern designs. This becomes evident in open-plan living, flowing transitions, and large window areas, whereas in conservative styles, a hallway often structures the space and windows are just large enough.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Price estimate according to general contractor: ~ 470,000 €

I assume this was only roughly calculated based on the square meters and the offered scope and quality of work (construction series)?

Looking at this here (I always read from top to bottom, and I’ve even opened the street on Google Maps and walked along it to get an impression): classic single-family house, single-storey, apparently all with the same roof pitch.

Then I read this:

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Roof shape – Gable roof 33° (specified by development plan)

And then this:

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Basement, floors – No basement, 2 full floors

and I immediately wonder how you plan to realize the two-floor design with a 33-degree roof pitch.

Looking at your design, I enter a rather absurd line of thought: there is a roof shape that is very suitable for living, but you as laypeople don’t even notice it, almost ignoring it, because as most home builders think, two stories just means two equal floors, with the facade identical as a townhouse typically is.

The development plan states right at the beginning the maximum height of your house, namely 6.60 meters (21.7 feet) for two floors.

Further on, the roof pitch is differentiated for one- and two-story designs.

And here is your question’s answer: since your currently preferred house is not allowed under the development plan, you absolutely need to go to an architect who can make the calculations for your house to make the best use of the regulations.

And finally: the Balance 300 is a townhouse, which is not desired in this residential area and whose floor plan cannot simply be transferred to an allowed house.

Thanks first of all for your effort!

ypg schrieb:



and then I immediately wonder how you plan to implement the two-story design with the 33-degree roof.
And when I look at your design, I enter a somewhat absurd thought process, namely whether there is a roof style that is very suitable for living but is simply not seen or even ignored by you laypeople, because as a builder you assume that two stories only means one thing: two identical floors, with a facade as uniform as a townhouse usually is.

The development plan clearly states the maximum height of your house, which is 6.60 meters (21.65 ft) for a two-story building.
And further on, the roof pitch is differentiated for one- and two-story buildings.

The development plan specifies the maximum eaves height, not the total height of the house, as 6.60 meters (21.65 ft). Therefore, we believe (and the seller at Weberhaus also did not see any issues and has thoroughly reviewed our development plan) that it should fit without problems. However, we are open to being corrected if we have misread it, and we are aware that sellers are not infallible ;-)

To clarify: the plot is located directly on the edge of this development plan area; next door, the situation is already much more complicated. In the area covered by our development plan, there are very similar houses (two full stories plus gable roof).

ypg schrieb:

And then: the Balance 300 is a townhouse style that is not desired in this residential area, nor can its floor plan be transferred to a permitted house.

Why are you so sure that a townhouse style is not allowed here?

ypg schrieb:


The development plan clearly states the maximum height of your house right at the beginning, specifically 6.60 meters (21.65 feet) for two-story buildings. Further on, the roof pitch is differentiated for one- and two-story constructions.

And this brings us to your question, since your currently preferred house design is not feasible according to the development plan: You should definitely consult an architect who can calculate your house to make the best use of the regulations.

First of all, I will write more about the main post later:
We probably have a similar development plan. The original poster mentioned a 6.6m (21.65 feet) eave side. That is possible for a two-story house if the development plan really refers to the eave side there.

(Our requirement is 6m (19.7 feet) eave side, gable roof with a maximum pitch of 30°. We even have an obligation for full stories. By reducing the clear room height to 250cm (98.4 inches), we were barely able to meet the 6m (19.7 feet) eave side requirement.)

PS: Our house will not win any beauty contests. But no house in that area will.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

The development plan specifies the maximum eave height, not the total building height, as 6.60 meters (21.7 feet).

Oh, indeed. :o I can make mistakes too, and it’s better if I make them rather than the local specialist.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

that sellers are not infallible

No one is infallible, and it’s good when the seller also studies the development plan – this isn’t always common practice.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Seller at Weberhaus saw no issues and thoroughly reviewed our development plan

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Why are you so sure that a townhouse is not desired?

Because of the roof pitch. As already mentioned: a roof with a 33-degree pitch is a traditional roof that also provides living space underneath.
Townhouses usually look quite modest when topped with a roof steeper than 25 degrees.
However, it would be possible within the eave height limit.

Sorry again if I caused any confusion.

Maybe it would be good to reread the section regarding hip roofs.

Regarding the design, even though I may have lost a point on credibility with you: I find Weberhaus’s original design better.
Children’s rooms are located on the west side, no wasted and space-consuming corridor, shower toilet placed where it’s needed. Direct access to the kitchen.
If you remove the troublesome pantry, you even get a spacious and functional kitchen.

The floor area is about 180sqm (1937 sqft), so the Balance 300 belongs to the larger houses, which allow for more possibilities and generous space.
The wrong approach is to focus on 180sqm (1937 sqft) and then try to reduce it. That doesn’t work. Therefore, I don’t see the Balance 300 as a good template.

Gänseblümchen7 schrieb:

Requirements of the homeowners

Be clear about what you want. I don’t see any mention of garages/house passage, pantry, or pantry substitute—these all increase the size of a house.
A large spatial requirement must be streamlined without unnecessary extras into 160sqm (1722 sqft).