ᐅ Searching for a General Contractor vs. Planning with an Architect and Tendering – General Approach?
Created on: 30 Jul 2025 08:56
1
1689owen
In our circle of acquaintances, we often hear that they have been looking for a general contractor, primarily advertising catalog homes, with whom they could realize their own ideas (sometimes through minor modifications, sometimes through significant deviations from the catalog, or even completely new designs). General contractors were then compared based on price, likeability/trust, and the description of the construction services (as far as available and understandable for laypersons) – probably in that order.
On the other hand, we also know some people who have worked with independent architects, had tenders created, and enjoyed a lot of freedom, but also a lot of work (especially decision-making, which is not necessarily a bad thing). They built in higher price ranges than we are aiming for (which probably is not directly related to this approach).
All of this is mainly hearsay; we have detailed insights only in a few individual cases.
We have now been wondering what role browsing catalogs should play for us. Whether we should "make life easier" by modifying a few general contractor offers until they basically fit, and then compare them. Or whether we should have an architect design the project. Details about our specific case can be discussed in another thread. Here, the question is more general, since the discussion in our circle of acquaintances also takes on a more general character.
So: What do you think about requesting and comparing general contractors with catalogs (e.g., Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not exactly the same league, I know, just for example purposes], or prefab home companies)? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to starting with an independent architect (who would then probably manage the tender process)?
And would "an architect who already has cooperating subcontractors" be a compromise?
Or what other common approaches are there (roughly outlined) to combine as many advantages as possible? (And: I don’t want to start a debate about direct building, but how would that be classified here?)
__
What’s on my mind:
- Quick offer turnaround / rough estimate
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. being "pushed into a predefined template"
- Owner’s own work
- Trades well coordinated with each other and, if applicable, with the architect
__
@Papierturm and @11ant (and possibly @ypg, I am not checking now) have already shared some experience in another thread based on our situation. Here it is perhaps a bit more general. I am familiar with the phases described by @11ant, but I assume there are many who have approached construction quite differently (whether that is better or worse is another matter; it seems to me to be a given).
On the other hand, we also know some people who have worked with independent architects, had tenders created, and enjoyed a lot of freedom, but also a lot of work (especially decision-making, which is not necessarily a bad thing). They built in higher price ranges than we are aiming for (which probably is not directly related to this approach).
All of this is mainly hearsay; we have detailed insights only in a few individual cases.
We have now been wondering what role browsing catalogs should play for us. Whether we should "make life easier" by modifying a few general contractor offers until they basically fit, and then compare them. Or whether we should have an architect design the project. Details about our specific case can be discussed in another thread. Here, the question is more general, since the discussion in our circle of acquaintances also takes on a more general character.
So: What do you think about requesting and comparing general contractors with catalogs (e.g., Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not exactly the same league, I know, just for example purposes], or prefab home companies)? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to starting with an independent architect (who would then probably manage the tender process)?
And would "an architect who already has cooperating subcontractors" be a compromise?
Or what other common approaches are there (roughly outlined) to combine as many advantages as possible? (And: I don’t want to start a debate about direct building, but how would that be classified here?)
__
What’s on my mind:
- Quick offer turnaround / rough estimate
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. being "pushed into a predefined template"
- Owner’s own work
- Trades well coordinated with each other and, if applicable, with the architect
__
@Papierturm and @11ant (and possibly @ypg, I am not checking now) have already shared some experience in another thread based on our situation. Here it is perhaps a bit more general. I am familiar with the phases described by @11ant, but I assume there are many who have approached construction quite differently (whether that is better or worse is another matter; it seems to me to be a given).
1689owen schrieb:
What’s on my mind:
- Prompt quote preparation / preliminary estimate
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. being "forced into a fixed framework"
- Owner’s own work
- Trades well coordinated with each other and, if applicable, with the architect The quote preparation at this stage amounts to no more than a preliminary estimate, and it can’t and shouldn’t be more than that. The price range is straightforward: "total house budget minus must-have budget equals nice-to-have budget." Non-load-bearing interior walls can be moved quite freely. Owner’s own work needs to be taken into account, meaning the correct level of finishing must be chosen. With contractors from outside the local area, it regularly happens that subcontractors must be brought in who haven’t worked with the core team. That’s why we leave the Dom in Cologne and the Michel in Hamburg.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Papierturm30 Jul 2025 20:201689owen schrieb:
@Papierturm Okay, Papierturm will share more.After getting some reality check last year, we bought a plot of land. What we didn’t know back then was what requirements the zoning plan imposed. Although it was oddly worded (for us as building novices), after consulting with the building authority it turned out to be quite straightforward. It specified the house’s positioning on the plot, maximum eave height, roof shape and pitch, a brick facade was required, and no knee walls or dormer knee walls were allowed (neither in the attic nor on the upper floor). As the very friendly official from the building department explained: roof slopes must extend all the way to the floor.
To get a feel for things, we did several things at once. Whether this was wise or disadvantageous, I don’t know.
1. We spent a lot of time figuring out which rooms we really needed and which we didn’t.
2. We visited a huge number of houses—friends’, family’s, and model home parks—mainly to get a sense of room sizes, circulation paths, and natural light. Always with the question: How does that work in everyday life? Would we be comfortable? What annoys us? What is essential?
3. I took the time to learn about technical aspects and terminology.
4. Even though the site orientation was fixed, we considered how to best integrate the house with the plot. For example, on one side, we have a fantastic view over a valley, so we factored that into the rough room layout (which rooms should face that side? Where should the stairs be? Where should utility rooms like the laundry be? And related: windows!).
5. I spoke to everyone I know who had already built a house about major planning issues they encountered.
From here on, things got complicated, and we also made some missteps:
6. We went through many (many, many) brochures and found floor plans we liked and that seemed like a good starting point. With a handful of technical requirements (air-to-water heat pump, usable attic; neither very unusual, in my view), we approached several general contractors (GCs) to try to get an offer based on the catalog floor plans (due to the zoning plan requirements, this almost always meant switching to two full stories, different roof shape, sometimes lowering the standard ceiling height so the eaves side wouldn’t be too tall).
7. This completely failed. Only one GC submitted an offer that complied with the zoning plan. Knee walls were often included. Our wishes were sometimes covertly ignored (for example: attic not usable), sometimes openly ignored (air-to-air heat pump in the offer). Whether it was about the house dimensions (zoning plan!) or our requests, the usual response was “that can be changed later.” Based on point 5, I knew this would cause significant additional costs later on.
7a. Some meetings with certain GCs were very frustrating. For example, we based our discussion on a standard floor plan, then suddenly a completely different version was calculated with totally different window and room layouts that did not suit the plot at all. As a result, for instance, there was not a single window on the valley side on the upper floor in the proposed plan.
8. On recommendation, we then went to an independent architect in the region who, for a fixed price, took on phases 1-4 (initial planning and design stages) without us providing any prior plans or drawings—his approach was to visit the plot, talk things through, and develop concepts together. He also managed communication with the GCs (including submission of our long list of desired features). As described in another thread, this worked out: we received relatively comparable offers (minor variations in scope for elements we didn’t specify still occurred). Almost all the offers complied with the zoning plan as they were based on the architect’s drawings.
Whether our approach will ultimately be good or bad, I don’t know. Let’s wait and see when the house is built. Since the architect has already saved us much more money than he cost (see another thread) and also helped us avoid some pitfalls, we are currently quite optimistic.
Papierturm schrieb:
and that there must be no knee wall / dwarf wall (neither in the attic nor on the upper floor). As the (by the way very friendly gentleman from the building authority) said: roof slopes must extend all the way to the floor. This attempt to explain in a user-friendly way is unfortunately factually incorrect. Even where the development plan excludes what some people and some regions call a "dwarf wall" (knee wall), it cannot actually prohibit a dwarf wall.
In many areas, there are historically or culturally established, practically only knee walls or only dwarf walls, and due to internal migration within Germany, people accustomed to knee walls move to dwarf wall regions and vice versa. Understandably, this has led to the common misconception that these are just different names for the same thing. However, they are in fact two opposite solutions for the same purpose (avoiding dirty corners in inhabited attic spaces). Building officials should be able to distinguish between these two concepts; otherwise, a "citizen-friendly explanation in plain language" creates a legally incorrect impression.
You are therefore allowed to install dwarf walls in knee wall-free attic spaces.
Papierturm schrieb:
So. From that point on, things got wild. And some wrong turns on our part began: I’m glad you were able to find help from an architect. However, a building consultant like myself would have been sufficient to distill a comparison standard that would have correctly put the providers back on track. Even before I had a signature, the path could be found thanks to my avatar (look carefully) and by googling my external contributions along with quotation marks around their titles.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
W
wiltshire31 Jul 2025 10:58Both approaches have their advantages and valid reasons for use. Which one is "better" can only be judged based on a specific goal.
To simplify, if you can agree with the following three statements, a catalog home will likely be the more cost-effective way for you to achieve your goal.
Statement 1: My requirements for the house are quite "normal." I have seen many houses and thought I could live well in them. People do not reflect back to me that my wishes are unusual.
Statement 2: For me, a house must primarily be durable and practical. I do not want to spend money on non-functional details. So far, I have had no special interest in architecture. Details I like can be added later with furnishings, colors, and decorations.
Statement 3: I have a plot of land that, due to its shape, building conditions, location, and geological characteristics, does not present any special challenges for building a standardized house.
To simplify, if you can agree with the following three statements, a catalog home will likely be the more cost-effective way for you to achieve your goal.
Statement 1: My requirements for the house are quite "normal." I have seen many houses and thought I could live well in them. People do not reflect back to me that my wishes are unusual.
Statement 2: For me, a house must primarily be durable and practical. I do not want to spend money on non-functional details. So far, I have had no special interest in architecture. Details I like can be added later with furnishings, colors, and decorations.
Statement 3: I have a plot of land that, due to its shape, building conditions, location, and geological characteristics, does not present any special challenges for building a standardized house.
Similar topics