Hello dear home builders,
We are currently deciding whether to work with an architect on planning phases L1-3 and then hire a general contractor (GC), or to choose a catalog house and possibly customize it with the home builder.
The key points are the cost of the construction project and general warranty issues.
We are currently deciding whether to work with an architect on planning phases L1-3 and then hire a general contractor (GC), or to choose a catalog house and possibly customize it with the home builder.
The key points are the cost of the construction project and general warranty issues.
- What are the cost savings of a GC’s catalog house compared to a custom-designed house that is then built by a GC?
- Does the GC also take over all warranty responsibilities for an architect-designed house, as they do for their own design?
- How realistically can an architect estimate ongoing construction costs if a budget range is given?
Wow, there’s a lot happening here today — it would probably get confusing to quote every addressed point. So first of all, many thanks to @roteweste_2 for your certainly valuable and comprehensive input filled with misunderstandings, misconceptions, and more, which I’m sure many readers will appreciate.
Apparently, you have also misinterpreted some of my posts here and elsewhere. We can gladly clarify that—just give me a call.
Catalog homes are designed according to the motto “one size fits all” for average families. Like any coin, this has two sides: they fit like a glove for a typical family — but the downside is that a third child and/or a second home office immediately take you out of this mainstream framework. Catalog homes are budget-oriented and tailored for average earners: so there is a lack of flexible buffer space. Consequently, frustration is almost guaranteed when you want or need to add one (or even two) additional rooms. I have already discussed the way out here and in the thread “Changing a floor plan size”: instead of trying to redistribute a fixed total area of a catalog home, the better approach is to “extend the wheelbase” of a smaller model.
The role of an independent architect is completely misunderstood if you see them only as officers of original floor plans — “Forget the ring — the ring is rubbish...” (Mel Brooks in “Spaceballs”). An architect shows their expertise in work phase 5. This phase is (after the “dough rising phase”) the second decisive step in ensuring the actual budget compliance of the home build — NOT a hunt for the most polished price quote!
Anyone who has not only read but also understood my home-building roadmap (which rightly receives “Reloaded” bonus episodes — thanks again for the reader feedback so far) will never skip a thorough work phase 5, because it contains the seed to avoid costly mistakes. No, commissioning an architect for work phases 1 through 3 alone does not empower you to successfully contract a general contractor (GC). And not least, because only people with too much money madly plan all phases 1 through 3 continuously with the architect, and only even crazier buyers with even more money immediately pick a GC.
My recommended approach is different (and the best advice to a future homeowner is: “Imagine you were @Gerddieter”). Namely, first work only on Module A with the architect, and then take that result (i.e. the preliminary design) into the most important phase: the active pause aka “dough rising and setting the course.” At this point, the preliminary design is exposed to the winds of the current market reality. Only privately insured clients with platinum credit cards can afford to skip this phase and go straight from work phase 2 to phase 3 without a break. The same applies to any prejudgments on the construction method, be it “solid / masonry” versus “prefabricated” — thanks to @KarstenausNRW for the tip on the hybrid “solid and finished” approach — as well as for fixed decisions like “definitely with a GC,” “definitely direct contract management,” or similarly risky and expensive missteps.
The outcome (the feedback from the “setting the course” phase) then points the way forward. Even the smartest 11ant doesn’t have a crystal ball and must wait for this result — and four decades of planning experience don’t change that. Only if the outcome suggests building with a prefabricated GC (which applies to both masonry and timber systems) is the next section of the architect contract work phase 3. After that, the prefabricated GC takes over further planning, with independent support brought in. This consultant can be the existing architect but then leaves the established phase sequence based on the HOAI model. Or you go to colleagues like Beuler, Freyermuth, Zink, or me, or one of my not so rare associates. If the result suggests “masonry,” then commissioning the architect for the full Module B (that is, work phases 3 through 5) is recommended.
Yes, work phase 5 is the architect’s most fee-intensive stage. And no, it is not the most expensive one; on the contrary, it is cost-neutral. Without phase 5, phases 6 and 7 have no solid foundation, and then in phase 8 one wonders why costs and/or quality run out of control — which no knowledgeable owner’s construction supervisor can bring back on track. And the GC’s “site supervisor”… LOLLL … no further comment needed. Having work phase 5 done by the original architect (or a key participant from phase 3) does not make the build more expensive — rather, it can lower costs by minimizing management hours. It also increases the Wife Acceptance Factor, since there is an inversely proportional causal connection between detailed planning and drywall blemishes.
By the way, the main advantages of catalog homes lie in their “maturing through series production” (otherwise my advice to extend the wheelbase would make no sense). There are cost advantages — but different from what small Fritz imagines. The cost advantages of standardized structural engineering benefit the customer in the price level, while those from “series routine” help in price predictability. There are discounts due to volume bonuses for heat pumps or similar equipment as well, but those do not lower the price; they increase the margin. The maturity of the system reduces complications and saves money over time. The main advantage of the series model is the quality of the result.
That is certainly an argument against the big names that shouldn’t be forgotten too often. But legal departments are not really a cost block; they are quasi self-financing, like work phase 5. Unlike marketing expenses, which mainly come from deception through vague terms and builder-side positions. Volume bonuses for home technology can never bear the expensive advertising costs alone.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Apparently, you have also misinterpreted some of my posts here and elsewhere. We can gladly clarify that—just give me a call.
Catalog homes are designed according to the motto “one size fits all” for average families. Like any coin, this has two sides: they fit like a glove for a typical family — but the downside is that a third child and/or a second home office immediately take you out of this mainstream framework. Catalog homes are budget-oriented and tailored for average earners: so there is a lack of flexible buffer space. Consequently, frustration is almost guaranteed when you want or need to add one (or even two) additional rooms. I have already discussed the way out here and in the thread “Changing a floor plan size”: instead of trying to redistribute a fixed total area of a catalog home, the better approach is to “extend the wheelbase” of a smaller model.
The role of an independent architect is completely misunderstood if you see them only as officers of original floor plans — “Forget the ring — the ring is rubbish...” (Mel Brooks in “Spaceballs”). An architect shows their expertise in work phase 5. This phase is (after the “dough rising phase”) the second decisive step in ensuring the actual budget compliance of the home build — NOT a hunt for the most polished price quote!
Anyone who has not only read but also understood my home-building roadmap (which rightly receives “Reloaded” bonus episodes — thanks again for the reader feedback so far) will never skip a thorough work phase 5, because it contains the seed to avoid costly mistakes. No, commissioning an architect for work phases 1 through 3 alone does not empower you to successfully contract a general contractor (GC). And not least, because only people with too much money madly plan all phases 1 through 3 continuously with the architect, and only even crazier buyers with even more money immediately pick a GC.
My recommended approach is different (and the best advice to a future homeowner is: “Imagine you were @Gerddieter”). Namely, first work only on Module A with the architect, and then take that result (i.e. the preliminary design) into the most important phase: the active pause aka “dough rising and setting the course.” At this point, the preliminary design is exposed to the winds of the current market reality. Only privately insured clients with platinum credit cards can afford to skip this phase and go straight from work phase 2 to phase 3 without a break. The same applies to any prejudgments on the construction method, be it “solid / masonry” versus “prefabricated” — thanks to @KarstenausNRW for the tip on the hybrid “solid and finished” approach — as well as for fixed decisions like “definitely with a GC,” “definitely direct contract management,” or similarly risky and expensive missteps.
The outcome (the feedback from the “setting the course” phase) then points the way forward. Even the smartest 11ant doesn’t have a crystal ball and must wait for this result — and four decades of planning experience don’t change that. Only if the outcome suggests building with a prefabricated GC (which applies to both masonry and timber systems) is the next section of the architect contract work phase 3. After that, the prefabricated GC takes over further planning, with independent support brought in. This consultant can be the existing architect but then leaves the established phase sequence based on the HOAI model. Or you go to colleagues like Beuler, Freyermuth, Zink, or me, or one of my not so rare associates. If the result suggests “masonry,” then commissioning the architect for the full Module B (that is, work phases 3 through 5) is recommended.
Yes, work phase 5 is the architect’s most fee-intensive stage. And no, it is not the most expensive one; on the contrary, it is cost-neutral. Without phase 5, phases 6 and 7 have no solid foundation, and then in phase 8 one wonders why costs and/or quality run out of control — which no knowledgeable owner’s construction supervisor can bring back on track. And the GC’s “site supervisor”… LOLLL … no further comment needed. Having work phase 5 done by the original architect (or a key participant from phase 3) does not make the build more expensive — rather, it can lower costs by minimizing management hours. It also increases the Wife Acceptance Factor, since there is an inversely proportional causal connection between detailed planning and drywall blemishes.
By the way, the main advantages of catalog homes lie in their “maturing through series production” (otherwise my advice to extend the wheelbase would make no sense). There are cost advantages — but different from what small Fritz imagines. The cost advantages of standardized structural engineering benefit the customer in the price level, while those from “series routine” help in price predictability. There are discounts due to volume bonuses for heat pumps or similar equipment as well, but those do not lower the price; they increase the margin. The maturity of the system reduces complications and saves money over time. The main advantage of the series model is the quality of the result.
Tolentino schrieb:
By the way, a very important cost block for really large regional GCs: the legal department. They have a good budget to fight your claims.
That is certainly an argument against the big names that shouldn’t be forgotten too often. But legal departments are not really a cost block; they are quasi self-financing, like work phase 5. Unlike marketing expenses, which mainly come from deception through vague terms and builder-side positions. Volume bonuses for home technology can never bear the expensive advertising costs alone.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics