Hello everyone,
I have been reading here for a while and would now like to make my first post. Of course, it is a request for help, or rather, I would like to ask for some advice.
My wife and I want to build a single-family house on our own plot of land. After extensive research and searching online, we have narrowed down the choice of builder to two options. On one hand, we have a fixed-price offer from a general contractor who would build the desired house for 295,000€ (approximately 295,000 euros). On the other hand, we have hired an architect who will tender the individual trades for us and also supervise the construction.
After obtaining quotes for each trade, the total cost for the same house with the same specifications as the general contractor’s offer would be 312,000€ (approximately 312,000 euros). However, this 312,000€ is not a fixed price like the general contractor’s offer (although additional costs would likely be added there as well). The architect believes that he can negotiate these costs down significantly, so the total could end up close to the general contractor’s price.
We personally feel good about both options, perhaps slightly better about the architect. If we went with the general contractor, we would also want to hire an independent building inspector, which would be an additional cost. This would not be necessary with the architect, as he would oversee the trades hired.
So far so good, but unfortunately, our budget would not cover the 312,000€, so we would have to hope that the price can indeed be reduced. We have set a maximum limit of 300,000€ (approximately 300,000 euros), with an additional 25,000€ (approximately 25,000 euros) reserved as a final contingency, which will certainly be used for various unforeseen expenses.
Now to the actual question. Do you think it is realistic that the architect’s estimated price can still be lowered, or is this just a sales tactic to win the contract over the general contractor? What are your thoughts on comparing general contractors and architects in this context? The architect claims that the warranty period he provides is longer than the general contractor’s. According to him, he is liable for 30 years, while a general contractor’s liability might only be 5 years. Setting aside the question of whether the architect will still be financially solvent, whether his company still exists, or whether he is still alive in 30 years…
Since we are complete beginners, although we have been planning and trying to inform ourselves for quite some time, I would be very grateful for an active discussion and any advice!
I have been reading here for a while and would now like to make my first post. Of course, it is a request for help, or rather, I would like to ask for some advice.
My wife and I want to build a single-family house on our own plot of land. After extensive research and searching online, we have narrowed down the choice of builder to two options. On one hand, we have a fixed-price offer from a general contractor who would build the desired house for 295,000€ (approximately 295,000 euros). On the other hand, we have hired an architect who will tender the individual trades for us and also supervise the construction.
After obtaining quotes for each trade, the total cost for the same house with the same specifications as the general contractor’s offer would be 312,000€ (approximately 312,000 euros). However, this 312,000€ is not a fixed price like the general contractor’s offer (although additional costs would likely be added there as well). The architect believes that he can negotiate these costs down significantly, so the total could end up close to the general contractor’s price.
We personally feel good about both options, perhaps slightly better about the architect. If we went with the general contractor, we would also want to hire an independent building inspector, which would be an additional cost. This would not be necessary with the architect, as he would oversee the trades hired.
So far so good, but unfortunately, our budget would not cover the 312,000€, so we would have to hope that the price can indeed be reduced. We have set a maximum limit of 300,000€ (approximately 300,000 euros), with an additional 25,000€ (approximately 25,000 euros) reserved as a final contingency, which will certainly be used for various unforeseen expenses.
Now to the actual question. Do you think it is realistic that the architect’s estimated price can still be lowered, or is this just a sales tactic to win the contract over the general contractor? What are your thoughts on comparing general contractors and architects in this context? The architect claims that the warranty period he provides is longer than the general contractor’s. According to him, he is liable for 30 years, while a general contractor’s liability might only be 5 years. Setting aside the question of whether the architect will still be financially solvent, whether his company still exists, or whether he is still alive in 30 years…
Since we are complete beginners, although we have been planning and trying to inform ourselves for quite some time, I would be very grateful for an active discussion and any advice!
perlenmann schrieb:
You can also get an architect-designed house from the general contractor at a fixed price! That’s right! You just have to keep a close eye on the critical points! With open-ended design, billing is based on the HOAI fee schedule without a fixed price! 😉Best regards
P
perlenmann22 Mar 2011 13:23We have a fixed price and were able to fully design the height, from the roof to the stairwell, as well as all the rooms. However, it’s not exactly a bargain ;-)
.... anyone who truly wants to see themselves as a builder and is INDIVIDUALISTIC without being stingy – aiming to build a distinctive feature in the main roof – can generally only achieve this with the help of a suitable architect ....... admittedly, they are not as common as sand on the beach ......
Similar topics