ᐅ Avoid Mistakes When Building Your Second Home: Builder or Architect?
Created on: 13 Feb 2024 11:39
R
RotesDach
Hello forum,
In 2020, we built a new single-family home. However, for various reasons, we are not completely satisfied and are considering building again. We want to take our time with this (time frame 5-10 years) to be really sure about what exactly we want to change. In the meantime, we can also save more equity and observe everyday life with the children. From our experience, daily life with 3-4 children requires a lot of flexibility in the house because the needs of all family members seem to change quickly. That is why we have set quite a long time frame.
When we started planning the house in 2019, we didn’t always make the right decisions in hindsight. With the first and later the second child, and then the lockdown, we could not view or visit everything that was installed beforehand. Also, contact with the architect from the homebuilding company was quite limited. We often simply lacked proper advice.
My question to you is: How can we avoid making the same mistakes again in the next build? We always had to make decisions very quickly and often had no solid basis to decide. We would have liked to have quick access to prices and services; this just wasn’t available. For example, if we planned an additional window or increased the living area, we received a new total price and could only guess how much the extra cost was.
We found that the homebuilding company only builds in the way they usually do, meaning when we asked for something unusual, they said it wasn’t possible. For example, we wanted a large panoramic glass window wall that could slide open barrier-free. They said this wasn’t possible for structural reasons in our house. It seemed likely that our builder simply did not have this kind of feature in their program, or the profit margin on such a request was too low for them.
What frustrates me most is the roof. It is not usable as living space. It is a low pyramid roof made of nail plate trusses. There is not enough standing height for living space, and the structure is not suitable for conversion. We never discussed the roof with the architect at the time. The catalog house our free planning was based on originally had a gable roof—exactly what we would wish for today. The architect kept talking about a "town villa" we would be building, and we eventually adopted that term. As laypeople, we understood that as a house with two full floors. However, the architect from the building company implied a pyramid roof by "town villa." The change from the original gable roof to this non-convertible pyramid roof was never communicated to us, and we realized this far too late. Sure, you could say we should have noticed, but at some point, we just wanted to finish the project. The two-year construction period with two small children was really exhausting.
For the second build, we want to do everything right or make as few mistakes as possible, so we are allowing ourselves a much longer time for advance planning. We certainly will not build with the same homebuilding company again.
BUT: Is this the typical experience with standard (prefabricated) homebuilders? If you want something special like panoramic window walls, is it better to go to an architect? They are usually paid hourly. I worry that an architect might overall be the more expensive option. If we do go with a homebuilder, should we choose one that specializes in our style? For example, Huf-Haus comes to mind, but they are also very expensive.
Maybe someone here has had similar experiences with poor communication and advice, especially during the corona period?
Is there another solution besides a homebuilding company or an architect that we haven’t thought of? We just want to be involved in every decision and not be treated like we were the first time.
If what you want is above the average in size and features, does it make more sense economically to hire an architect than to modify a catalog house so much that it only ends up being more expensive?
Thanks for reading. I know this post is long.
In 2020, we built a new single-family home. However, for various reasons, we are not completely satisfied and are considering building again. We want to take our time with this (time frame 5-10 years) to be really sure about what exactly we want to change. In the meantime, we can also save more equity and observe everyday life with the children. From our experience, daily life with 3-4 children requires a lot of flexibility in the house because the needs of all family members seem to change quickly. That is why we have set quite a long time frame.
When we started planning the house in 2019, we didn’t always make the right decisions in hindsight. With the first and later the second child, and then the lockdown, we could not view or visit everything that was installed beforehand. Also, contact with the architect from the homebuilding company was quite limited. We often simply lacked proper advice.
My question to you is: How can we avoid making the same mistakes again in the next build? We always had to make decisions very quickly and often had no solid basis to decide. We would have liked to have quick access to prices and services; this just wasn’t available. For example, if we planned an additional window or increased the living area, we received a new total price and could only guess how much the extra cost was.
We found that the homebuilding company only builds in the way they usually do, meaning when we asked for something unusual, they said it wasn’t possible. For example, we wanted a large panoramic glass window wall that could slide open barrier-free. They said this wasn’t possible for structural reasons in our house. It seemed likely that our builder simply did not have this kind of feature in their program, or the profit margin on such a request was too low for them.
What frustrates me most is the roof. It is not usable as living space. It is a low pyramid roof made of nail plate trusses. There is not enough standing height for living space, and the structure is not suitable for conversion. We never discussed the roof with the architect at the time. The catalog house our free planning was based on originally had a gable roof—exactly what we would wish for today. The architect kept talking about a "town villa" we would be building, and we eventually adopted that term. As laypeople, we understood that as a house with two full floors. However, the architect from the building company implied a pyramid roof by "town villa." The change from the original gable roof to this non-convertible pyramid roof was never communicated to us, and we realized this far too late. Sure, you could say we should have noticed, but at some point, we just wanted to finish the project. The two-year construction period with two small children was really exhausting.
For the second build, we want to do everything right or make as few mistakes as possible, so we are allowing ourselves a much longer time for advance planning. We certainly will not build with the same homebuilding company again.
BUT: Is this the typical experience with standard (prefabricated) homebuilders? If you want something special like panoramic window walls, is it better to go to an architect? They are usually paid hourly. I worry that an architect might overall be the more expensive option. If we do go with a homebuilder, should we choose one that specializes in our style? For example, Huf-Haus comes to mind, but they are also very expensive.
Maybe someone here has had similar experiences with poor communication and advice, especially during the corona period?
Is there another solution besides a homebuilding company or an architect that we haven’t thought of? We just want to be involved in every decision and not be treated like we were the first time.
If what you want is above the average in size and features, does it make more sense economically to hire an architect than to modify a catalog house so much that it only ends up being more expensive?
Thanks for reading. I know this post is long.
C
Costruttrice13 Feb 2024 14:47RotesDach schrieb:
The roof is neither old nor in need of replacement. I see that point as well. Frustrating.
And you don’t just replace four-year-old windows with new panoramic windows without reason.
So I’m struggling with the idea of replacing something new and functional, which, emotionally, really feels like nonsense. But at least it’s cheaper than starting completely from scratch.Would it be possible to extend your house with an addition? Of course, this depends on your property and, not least, the plot ratio (floor area ratio) to determine if it’s feasible. If so, you could gain additional living space and maybe also incorporate the panoramic window.R
RotesDach13 Feb 2024 15:03Hello Costruttrice,
thank you. Unfortunately, an extension is not possible because we have already reached the maximum floor area ratio. I had already considered that as well. The only option left is to add a maximum of one attic floor in height.
Best regards
thank you. Unfortunately, an extension is not possible because we have already reached the maximum floor area ratio. I had already considered that as well. The only option left is to add a maximum of one attic floor in height.
Best regards
H
hausbau_phobos13 Feb 2024 16:14Just be prepared that with a reasonably good standard (panoramic windows, barrier-free as you mentioned—Skyframe, perhaps?), you can quickly reach $3000, $3500, or more per m2 (10.8 sq ft). So, for over 200 m2 (2,150 sq ft), you’re easily looking at $800,000 or more, not including the land. And as you said, interest rates today are higher than the 1% for your $400,000.
RotesDach schrieb:
My question to you all now is: How can we avoid making the same mistakes when building the next time? I’ll get back to you later and, for now, will start by reading:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/193qm-stadtvilla-mit-nordausrichtung-sinnvoll.37252/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
M
masterflok13 Feb 2024 17:58I briefly reviewed the original thread. It’s surprising how few of the well-intentioned recommendations you took on board. And you seriously expect things to be different with the second house?
How was your house actually built? I hope it wasn’t done the same way as shown in the original thread?!
How was your house actually built? I hope it wasn’t done the same way as shown in the original thread?!
First of all, about the headline:
My first spontaneous reaction was to say that the "or" is wrong and should be an "and." Based on the previous posts in this thread, I’m starting to understand what this question really means. Namely, whether you should just hand yourself over to the first general contractor (GC) you find, or if having architectural planning beforehand can prevent you from being dragged by a GC from the "house you want to build" to a "house within their (possibly poor) capabilities and standard formula," as if held hostage by a kidnapper. It must be clearly said: the original mistake here was relying on a planner that the GC brought along. On the "train to nowhere," NO route leads to Paris.
You must always choose the architect yourself. I explain this in detail in "A house-building roadmap for you too: the phase model of HOAI!" With this architect, you first develop a preliminary design, and during the waiting period, you make a critical decision. Your second mistake was that the design featuring a panoramic dining room view could have been realized more faithfully with a different construction method. Instead, the inflexible GC pushed you fully into the limitations of their usual system. But this was avoidable—I pointed this out early in your previous thread.
During the decision-making phase, several builders specializing in masonry and wood construction would have given you feedback on how expensive your wishes would be to implement with them. Your GC—"you build your first house for an enemy"—would have been under appropriate pressure to explain why the competitor’s approach was feasible and his was not. Afterwards, you would have developed the preliminary design into a final design using the feasible construction method, and then, with a construction consultant you chose yourself—such as the designing architect—you would actively develop the work specification, which is the basis for tendering.
Choosing a GC for execution is not a mistake per se—only that you go directly to one. A smart homeowner gets each trade properly tendered separately by a qualified specialist. If then one bidder offers for several or all lots and only thereby becomes the GC for this specific project, that is a good approach. Approaching a “design-and-build” or all-in-one contractor from the start and awarding them without competition is as foolish as it is popular—there’s no nicer way to say it (except “not clearly enough”).
No!!!
The biggest nonsense now would be to destroy objectively valuable, market-standard building components by removing and replacing them uneconomically—this applies equally to the roof and the non-panoramic windows. I would not continue to suffer the emotional damage of living every day in a home that feels like a stigma of a clumsy choice. I don’t see any significant extra costs: the new house effectively pays for itself because it can shrink by 30 or more square meters (30m² (323ft²)) without the slightest loss of living quality. In two years, you will be one step further in a "swap of the financed property" and able to laugh about the mistake with the first builder. And there is no more convenient basis for searching for a nearby plot than your current one. My former partner finds several plots each year while walking his dog and is only unfortunate not to be liquid enough to snap them all up. Mind you, this is in a hiking and long-distance view area with two highway interchanges each reachable in about fifteen minutes. "There’s nothing" is a pessimistic perception.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
RotesDach schrieb:
Avoid mistakes with the second house: general contractor or architect?
My first spontaneous reaction was to say that the "or" is wrong and should be an "and." Based on the previous posts in this thread, I’m starting to understand what this question really means. Namely, whether you should just hand yourself over to the first general contractor (GC) you find, or if having architectural planning beforehand can prevent you from being dragged by a GC from the "house you want to build" to a "house within their (possibly poor) capabilities and standard formula," as if held hostage by a kidnapper. It must be clearly said: the original mistake here was relying on a planner that the GC brought along. On the "train to nowhere," NO route leads to Paris.
You must always choose the architect yourself. I explain this in detail in "A house-building roadmap for you too: the phase model of HOAI!" With this architect, you first develop a preliminary design, and during the waiting period, you make a critical decision. Your second mistake was that the design featuring a panoramic dining room view could have been realized more faithfully with a different construction method. Instead, the inflexible GC pushed you fully into the limitations of their usual system. But this was avoidable—I pointed this out early in your previous thread.
During the decision-making phase, several builders specializing in masonry and wood construction would have given you feedback on how expensive your wishes would be to implement with them. Your GC—"you build your first house for an enemy"—would have been under appropriate pressure to explain why the competitor’s approach was feasible and his was not. Afterwards, you would have developed the preliminary design into a final design using the feasible construction method, and then, with a construction consultant you chose yourself—such as the designing architect—you would actively develop the work specification, which is the basis for tendering.
Choosing a GC for execution is not a mistake per se—only that you go directly to one. A smart homeowner gets each trade properly tendered separately by a qualified specialist. If then one bidder offers for several or all lots and only thereby becomes the GC for this specific project, that is a good approach. Approaching a “design-and-build” or all-in-one contractor from the start and awarding them without competition is as foolish as it is popular—there’s no nicer way to say it (except “not clearly enough”).
RotesDach schrieb:
I’m struggling with replacing something new and functional, which from an emotional standpoint feels completely pointless. But at least it’s cheaper than starting entirely from scratch. Versus a new build, which would involve significantly higher costs compared to a new roof alone.
No!!!
The biggest nonsense now would be to destroy objectively valuable, market-standard building components by removing and replacing them uneconomically—this applies equally to the roof and the non-panoramic windows. I would not continue to suffer the emotional damage of living every day in a home that feels like a stigma of a clumsy choice. I don’t see any significant extra costs: the new house effectively pays for itself because it can shrink by 30 or more square meters (30m² (323ft²)) without the slightest loss of living quality. In two years, you will be one step further in a "swap of the financed property" and able to laugh about the mistake with the first builder. And there is no more convenient basis for searching for a nearby plot than your current one. My former partner finds several plots each year while walking his dog and is only unfortunate not to be liquid enough to snap them all up. Mind you, this is in a hiking and long-distance view area with two highway interchanges each reachable in about fifteen minutes. "There’s nothing" is a pessimistic perception.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics