Hello everyone,
I have a general question about the costs when building with architects and with a general contractor (GC), as we are currently considering how we want to have our house built. There are several options to consider.
1) Architect contracted individually for all phases of services
2) Architect handles the design and the GC handles the construction
3) GC takes care of both design and construction
From what I have learned and understand, theoretically, none of these models should be inherently more expensive or cheaper if the quality and scope of services are the same. I also assume that a GC cannot manage without planning and site supervision, which must be included in their calculation. That’s why I’d like to ask those of you who have experience with this: Is a house built with an architect generally more expensive in practice?
Best regards
I have a general question about the costs when building with architects and with a general contractor (GC), as we are currently considering how we want to have our house built. There are several options to consider.
1) Architect contracted individually for all phases of services
2) Architect handles the design and the GC handles the construction
3) GC takes care of both design and construction
From what I have learned and understand, theoretically, none of these models should be inherently more expensive or cheaper if the quality and scope of services are the same. I also assume that a GC cannot manage without planning and site supervision, which must be included in their calculation. That’s why I’d like to ask those of you who have experience with this: Is a house built with an architect generally more expensive in practice?
Best regards
Lumpi_LE schrieb:
He should show you references of what he has done in similar situations.
If he offers to draw something for you free of charge, that would rather indicate a poor architect who feels the need to do so. Yes, I wouldn’t expect that either. It hasn’t been the case with any architect so far. We have already preselected the architects based on their reference projects, which we believe we like. Of course, that creates a bit of a dilemma when it comes to ultimately deciding on one architect.
You already have an architect, and the fee schedule is the same for everyone. Does your current architect give any indication that they would not be a good choice as the construction manager, or is that why you are still looking?
I hope it’s not in the hope that an architect casting would suddenly produce a breakthrough design? – not even with Bohlen on the jury!
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I hope it’s not in the hope that an architect casting would suddenly produce a breakthrough design? – not even with Bohlen on the jury!
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
DASI90 schrieb:
When we are looking for an architect, what can I expect from an architect before the first payment is made? Discussion, references, and possibly a quick preliminary sketch
11ant schrieb:
You already have an architect, and the fee schedule is the same for everyone. Does your current architect hint that he wouldn’t be a good choice as the construction manager, or why are you still looking?
I certainly hope it’s not in the hope that an architect casting would produce a “eureka” design – not even with Bohlen on the jury! No, we don’t want to organize a casting. As you correctly suspect, concerns have come up regarding the construction management.
The following situation currently applies to us. Based on references, we focused on two architects and have now met with both to get to know them. Honestly, we are still not sure who to choose, as we felt comfortable with both during the conversations and could imagine working with either.
1) The first architects have a noticeably smaller office than number two. From the beginning, we felt very well taken care of here. Regarding costs and site management, they made a very competent impression on us, as they have completed several private residential building projects recently and are currently working on one. Compared directly to number two, this architectural office is more personal, but not quite as streamlined and professional. That does not mean there is a lack of professionalism! Billing is to be done according to fee zone 3 and the intermediate rate.
2) Number two has a larger office with more employees. Their appearance is very professional. They handle some larger new builds and renovations in the public sector as well as private residential buildings. This is positive in that they seem to be closely connected to current pricing and award processes. Site management should also work well in my opinion, as there are a few experienced civil engineers involved. On the other hand, I think this could lead to contact persons changing during the project or your single-family house being deprioritized. They also mentioned that they do not take on every single-family house project (naturally a question of possible fees), since single-family homes require intensive attention. I found this quite honest, but it also somewhat confirmed my concerns. What we did not like was the recommendation to plan at least one year for the design phase. To me, this implies that single-family housing projects get pushed into the schedule and are worked on only alongside larger projects. The office uses BIM and makes extensive use of VR for selections as well as volumetrics and space planning. Whether this truly helps and is necessary, I am not sure. The biggest “drawback” is probably that they are more expensive. We are still waiting for an offer, but as far as I understand, billing is based on fee zone 4, since single-family homes require more intensive support. That was the exact wording.
What do you think is more important?
1) The first architects have a noticeably smaller office than number two. From the beginning, we felt very well taken care of here. Regarding costs and site management, they made a very competent impression on us, as they have completed several private residential building projects recently and are currently working on one. Compared directly to number two, this architectural office is more personal, but not quite as streamlined and professional. That does not mean there is a lack of professionalism! Billing is to be done according to fee zone 3 and the intermediate rate.
2) Number two has a larger office with more employees. Their appearance is very professional. They handle some larger new builds and renovations in the public sector as well as private residential buildings. This is positive in that they seem to be closely connected to current pricing and award processes. Site management should also work well in my opinion, as there are a few experienced civil engineers involved. On the other hand, I think this could lead to contact persons changing during the project or your single-family house being deprioritized. They also mentioned that they do not take on every single-family house project (naturally a question of possible fees), since single-family homes require intensive attention. I found this quite honest, but it also somewhat confirmed my concerns. What we did not like was the recommendation to plan at least one year for the design phase. To me, this implies that single-family housing projects get pushed into the schedule and are worked on only alongside larger projects. The office uses BIM and makes extensive use of VR for selections as well as volumetrics and space planning. Whether this truly helps and is necessary, I am not sure. The biggest “drawback” is probably that they are more expensive. We are still waiting for an offer, but as far as I understand, billing is based on fee zone 4, since single-family homes require more intensive support. That was the exact wording.
What do you think is more important?
Similar topics