ᐅ Is It Advisable to Combine an Independent Architect with a General Contractor?
Created on: 19 Sep 2017 22:40
D
DanineedshelpD
Danineedshelp19 Sep 2017 22:40Hello.
I quickly registered in this forum and am hoping for your tips and experiences.
We found and have now purchased a great building plot. According to the development plan, we were only allowed to build a simple single-family house with a pitched roof and a single storey.
Because we didn’t want that, we consulted a local architect.
With success. The development plan now allows us to have a flat roof. Since the upper floor is proportionally smaller by a certain factor, the current house design, despite having two full floors without a pitched roof, is still considered single-storey.
For us, this is a wonderful solution. The consultation with the architect was definitely worth it.
Now to my question:
We have a perfect design plan from our architect....
We want to combine the previous work of our architect with the services of a general contractor using a turnkey construction method.
The reason for this is, on the one hand, good private contacts that will likely bring a cost advantage.
On the other hand, we also prefer not to tender each trade separately… concerns about warranties, communication, coordination.
Our current idea: our architect prepares a detailed construction plan that the general contractor can then use to start work. The architect would visit the construction site occasionally, charging hourly, to supervise the execution.
The general contractor would then build turnkey according to the architect’s construction plan.
- The general contractor needs their own detailed construction plan for the cost estimate… can we skip having the architect prepare the construction plan, or is it better to pay for both to ensure that the ideas that define the house are truly implemented, even if it is frustrating?
- Our planned house is not a standard “off-the-shelf” house… the general contractor might not have enough experience to create a good detailed construction plan based on the design plan?
- Currently there is a construction boom…
the general contractor’s margin = architect’s costs for tendering the trades including site supervision???
Surely an architect costs money, but I cannot read or check detailed construction drawings to verify whether the general contractor understood all the details from a design plan.
Has anyone had experience with this combination: independent architect + general contractor?
What do you consider the most sensible approach at this point?
I am looking forward to your answers and experiences.
I quickly registered in this forum and am hoping for your tips and experiences.
We found and have now purchased a great building plot. According to the development plan, we were only allowed to build a simple single-family house with a pitched roof and a single storey.
Because we didn’t want that, we consulted a local architect.
With success. The development plan now allows us to have a flat roof. Since the upper floor is proportionally smaller by a certain factor, the current house design, despite having two full floors without a pitched roof, is still considered single-storey.
For us, this is a wonderful solution. The consultation with the architect was definitely worth it.
Now to my question:
We have a perfect design plan from our architect....
We want to combine the previous work of our architect with the services of a general contractor using a turnkey construction method.
The reason for this is, on the one hand, good private contacts that will likely bring a cost advantage.
On the other hand, we also prefer not to tender each trade separately… concerns about warranties, communication, coordination.
Our current idea: our architect prepares a detailed construction plan that the general contractor can then use to start work. The architect would visit the construction site occasionally, charging hourly, to supervise the execution.
The general contractor would then build turnkey according to the architect’s construction plan.
- The general contractor needs their own detailed construction plan for the cost estimate… can we skip having the architect prepare the construction plan, or is it better to pay for both to ensure that the ideas that define the house are truly implemented, even if it is frustrating?
- Our planned house is not a standard “off-the-shelf” house… the general contractor might not have enough experience to create a good detailed construction plan based on the design plan?
- Currently there is a construction boom…
the general contractor’s margin = architect’s costs for tendering the trades including site supervision???
Surely an architect costs money, but I cannot read or check detailed construction drawings to verify whether the general contractor understood all the details from a design plan.
Has anyone had experience with this combination: independent architect + general contractor?
What do you consider the most sensible approach at this point?
I am looking forward to your answers and experiences.
As always, it depends,…
Many general contractors (GCs) have their own in-house architects they want to keep busy. They would lose profit margin and end up with employees without work. Other GCs don’t have any architects at all and handle all the processes themselves. I wouldn’t assign the detailed construction planning to the architect but rather to the GC; the architect can then review it on an hourly basis.
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The benefit of a single company is shorter communication lines and a shared understanding; the architect knows what their team is capable of. The advantage of splitting the roles is that you immediately have an independent construction supervisor, fresh ideas, and a “second perspective” on the project.
Many general contractors (GCs) have their own in-house architects they want to keep busy. They would lose profit margin and end up with employees without work. Other GCs don’t have any architects at all and handle all the processes themselves. I wouldn’t assign the detailed construction planning to the architect but rather to the GC; the architect can then review it on an hourly basis.
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The benefit of a single company is shorter communication lines and a shared understanding; the architect knows what their team is capable of. The advantage of splitting the roles is that you immediately have an independent construction supervisor, fresh ideas, and a “second perspective” on the project.
Danineedshelp schrieb:
-our planned house is not a run-of-the-mill standard house ... the general contractor might possibly lack the experience to develop a good detailed construction plan from a design plan??? The detailed construction plans are usually created by the design planner (and that’s the only sensible way to do it). Changing horses in midstream would be, in my opinion, a bad idea. It is also quite common for an independent architect to work with a general contractor – although they usually have contractors they know personally. It’s also not unusual for an architect to do almost everything with one general contractor, but always in combination with a specific carpenter or similar specialist.
The general contractor will have their own standard building specification that they use as a basis – especially if they also act as the developer. For a “non-standard” house, the architect should then compare this standard specification with the one they have created for your project. Wherever there are differences, a different subcontractor should be assigned accordingly.
Working with a general contractor doesn’t necessarily mean “all or nothing” – on the contrary, they often subcontract certain trades and are usually quite happy if you assign those parts elsewhere. Your combination is more common than you might think.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
We do it, for example, by having the exterior shell with the roof constructed, and then we contract the trades for the interior work ourselves with known craftsmen. The architect then only takes care of supervision. Whether this means 1-2 months longer construction time and thus additional rent is compensated by the savings from not paying a general contractor anyway.
I consider this not only possible but a very good, if not the most cost-effective, solution. The only thing I don’t understand is: why is the general contractor supposed to create the detailed construction drawings again? These are, of course, made by the architect, and the general contractor simply builds according to them.
Similar topics