ᐅ Planning by a general contractor or an independent architect?
Created on: 14 Mar 2025 13:22
D
Dino548
Hello everyone,
We are at the very beginning of our house-building plans – we have purchased a plot of land, had an initial general discussion with a general contractor (GC), and have many questions.
This is a long text, so I really appreciate any feedback you can give. For better clarity, I have separated and numbered my questions.
We want to build a turnkey house through a solid construction company. A building surveyor we know recommended four companies in our region with whom he has had many years of good experience. Before purchasing our plot, we talked with an architect from one of these companies about our rough ideas. Since we know many other homebuilders have had good experiences with this company, they will be our first contact when things become more concrete.
However, we are wondering whether we should have the entire planning—including the offer—done by this company first, in order to then get offers from competitors, or if we should initially hire an independent architect and finally present the plans created by them to the construction companies. In any case, we want the offers to be reviewed by an expert, because we might not fully understand the scope of services otherwise.
I know similar questions have been discussed often in this forum, but since it was sometimes in a slightly different context, I would be very grateful if you could share your experiences.
Option 1: Planning by the construction company
The architect from the company we spoke to made a generally serious and competent impression on us. However, we felt that he tried to influence our thought process somewhat. For example, he advised us against having a basement regardless of the plot conditions – with rather weak arguments. We found this quite disturbing and wonder if, in future conversations, he might generally try to steer us away from options that are less profitable for the company. We might not always notice this so clearly, as we did with the basement topic.
Of course, you don’t get such an independent planning as you would with a freelance architect from a company. On the other hand, we wonder if a house planned by a construction company tends to be significantly cheaper than one designed by a freelance architect. Many solid builders deny offering standard “cookie-cutter” houses, but it seems likely that they rely on proven layouts that are economically advantageous for them. So my first question:
1. In your opinion, do clients generally save money if the planning is done by the construction company?
It would be perfectly fine for us to use a standard floor plan that is maybe slightly modified in certain details. We don’t necessarily need a fully custom architect-designed house. However, we do expect honest advice during planning that isn’t driven solely by the company’s financial interests.
A second question related to this:
2. Assuming we let the said company do the planning and then take those plans to competitors: In your experience, would competitors be able to work with these plans and provide an offer, or should we expect to have to completely replan everything with each competitor?
Besides the fact that the latter would be very time-consuming, we also wonder how comparable the offers would be if they were based on different plans.
Option 2: Planning by a freelance architect
We see advantages in the independence of freelance architects but, as mentioned above, we wonder if a house planned by an architect tends to be significantly more expensive than one based on a layout a company has already built many times, with a few modifications.
3. Furthermore, we cannot judge whether construction companies can definitely work with plans from an independent architect or if it sometimes happens that they want to create their own plans before making an offer, which would lead to double effort both in terms of time and money. Since we want to get offers from the four mentioned companies, we are interested in ensuring that none is excluded just because they didn’t do the planning themselves.
4. I have noticed there is often discussion about which service phases of an independent architect to commission when building with a general contractor. Some recommend phases 1-3, while others advise against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually necessary, and which ones are nice to have?
And to conclude:
5. We are wondering which of the two options – 1 or 2 – is overall more time-efficient. Of course, building a house is time-consuming, but currently, we have a tightly scheduled life. If time can be saved in good conscience, that would be an important factor for us.
Many thanks in advance for your answers!
We are at the very beginning of our house-building plans – we have purchased a plot of land, had an initial general discussion with a general contractor (GC), and have many questions.
This is a long text, so I really appreciate any feedback you can give. For better clarity, I have separated and numbered my questions.
We want to build a turnkey house through a solid construction company. A building surveyor we know recommended four companies in our region with whom he has had many years of good experience. Before purchasing our plot, we talked with an architect from one of these companies about our rough ideas. Since we know many other homebuilders have had good experiences with this company, they will be our first contact when things become more concrete.
However, we are wondering whether we should have the entire planning—including the offer—done by this company first, in order to then get offers from competitors, or if we should initially hire an independent architect and finally present the plans created by them to the construction companies. In any case, we want the offers to be reviewed by an expert, because we might not fully understand the scope of services otherwise.
I know similar questions have been discussed often in this forum, but since it was sometimes in a slightly different context, I would be very grateful if you could share your experiences.
Option 1: Planning by the construction company
The architect from the company we spoke to made a generally serious and competent impression on us. However, we felt that he tried to influence our thought process somewhat. For example, he advised us against having a basement regardless of the plot conditions – with rather weak arguments. We found this quite disturbing and wonder if, in future conversations, he might generally try to steer us away from options that are less profitable for the company. We might not always notice this so clearly, as we did with the basement topic.
Of course, you don’t get such an independent planning as you would with a freelance architect from a company. On the other hand, we wonder if a house planned by a construction company tends to be significantly cheaper than one designed by a freelance architect. Many solid builders deny offering standard “cookie-cutter” houses, but it seems likely that they rely on proven layouts that are economically advantageous for them. So my first question:
1. In your opinion, do clients generally save money if the planning is done by the construction company?
It would be perfectly fine for us to use a standard floor plan that is maybe slightly modified in certain details. We don’t necessarily need a fully custom architect-designed house. However, we do expect honest advice during planning that isn’t driven solely by the company’s financial interests.
A second question related to this:
2. Assuming we let the said company do the planning and then take those plans to competitors: In your experience, would competitors be able to work with these plans and provide an offer, or should we expect to have to completely replan everything with each competitor?
Besides the fact that the latter would be very time-consuming, we also wonder how comparable the offers would be if they were based on different plans.
Option 2: Planning by a freelance architect
We see advantages in the independence of freelance architects but, as mentioned above, we wonder if a house planned by an architect tends to be significantly more expensive than one based on a layout a company has already built many times, with a few modifications.
3. Furthermore, we cannot judge whether construction companies can definitely work with plans from an independent architect or if it sometimes happens that they want to create their own plans before making an offer, which would lead to double effort both in terms of time and money. Since we want to get offers from the four mentioned companies, we are interested in ensuring that none is excluded just because they didn’t do the planning themselves.
4. I have noticed there is often discussion about which service phases of an independent architect to commission when building with a general contractor. Some recommend phases 1-3, while others advise against it. What do you think? Which service phases are actually necessary, and which ones are nice to have?
And to conclude:
5. We are wondering which of the two options – 1 or 2 – is overall more time-efficient. Of course, building a house is time-consuming, but currently, we have a tightly scheduled life. If time can be saved in good conscience, that would be an important factor for us.
Many thanks in advance for your answers!
M
MachsSelbst19 Mar 2025 16:40There is a lot of narrow-minded thinking involved. There are employees at the general contractor who are truly committed, but there are also architects who deliver only standard, run-of-the-mill work. I know several cases where the construction management was ultimately handled by the client themselves because the architect was never on site.
Nordanney describes the theory, but he probably knows very well that in practice it usually looks quite different.
First, you have to find an architect who can clearly understand and bring out your wishes, and the real problem is already evident in the last sentence. Nordanney may have built 5 houses already, but most people only build one in their lifetime. Where is the experience and confidence supposed to come from to contradict an architect who says, “Sorry, that’s not possible” by saying, “Yes, it is possible, that’s how I want it, and if you can’t do it, I will find someone else…”
Most people then say, “Oh, that’s not possible? Well, okay, then we’ll do without it...”
Nordanney describes the theory, but he probably knows very well that in practice it usually looks quite different.
First, you have to find an architect who can clearly understand and bring out your wishes, and the real problem is already evident in the last sentence. Nordanney may have built 5 houses already, but most people only build one in their lifetime. Where is the experience and confidence supposed to come from to contradict an architect who says, “Sorry, that’s not possible” by saying, “Yes, it is possible, that’s how I want it, and if you can’t do it, I will find someone else…”
Most people then say, “Oh, that’s not possible? Well, okay, then we’ll do without it...”
N
nordanney19 Mar 2025 17:35MachsSelbst schrieb:
Where is the experience and confidence supposed to come from to tell an architect who says, "Sorry, that won’t work," to respond, "Yes, it will, this is how I want it, and if you can’t do it, I’ll find someone else..."? Honestly? If I’m building a house for half a million and then don’t have the guts, I feel sorry for the client. For every TV and every smartphone, you can find forums and reviews online and get informed to no end. But when it comes to a house, people just give in and either a) don’t confidently express their wishes or b) accept everything as if it were set in stone?
I can think of 500,000 hard-earned reasons to be confident.
Anyone who approaches it like that is simply naive.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
Nordanney describes the theory, but he probably knows very well himself that in practice it usually looks different. In practice, things usually turn out quite positively. But yes, of course, there are always some bad apples everywhere.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
Most people then say, "Oh, that won’t work? Okay, then we’ll just skip it..." If I have three preliminary meetings and each time I hear that my wishes are not feasible, I start to think.
Serena_Neubau schrieb:
The architect only contacts the tradespeople he frequently works with or those from the local area. nordanney schrieb:
The architect does what I, as his client, instruct him to do. And when he puts forward his three top tradespeople, I take the tender he prepared (which I paid for) and share it with the tradespeople I know, those known by acquaintances, and a few I may have found regionally based on good reviews. The architect uses "his" reliable, known tradespeople precisely when this is expected to be entirely his responsibility. He knows, for example, that Jürgen is the better pastry chef and Thomas is the better bread baker — so he also knows who fits best for the specific construction project. If the client wants a singing or shooting club member included in the team lineup, it’s best to communicate that to the architect, who will then include them. A parallel tendering process by the client is pointless: each trade or contract should only include the appropriate number of bidders, as having too many does not benefit anyone.
Serena_Neubau schrieb:
For the tradespeople, participating in such a tender is a huge effort. It’s actually the other way around: it is more effort for tradespeople to take part in an amateur tender than in a professional tender.
Serena_Neubau schrieb:
Usually, only the tradespeople who really see a chance of winning the contract take part in the tenders… These are the tradespeople with connections to the architects. Again, it’s the opposite: amateur tenders are frequently poorly organized (meaning clarifications only reveal how much the parties are talking past each other about the actual scope). They are also inefficient “busy work,” because amateurs tend to think it’s smart to invite many bidders and not be transparent about when they want an offer, a counteroffer, or a competitive bid. Tradespeople directly approached by the client must, from experience, expect that their effort may not correspond to a realistic chance of winning the contract. Every self-employed tradesperson pays their employees with actual contracts, not offers. Naturally, they prefer to spend overtime preparing detailed bids for accredited, serious clients rather than for offer-gatherers playing at this in their spare time.
Serena_Neubau schrieb:
From our experience, the architect usually plans the way he normally builds houses or believes is correct. If you want something different or have other expectations, it can be difficult to enforce them, and you might have to handle a lot yourself. Your house, your rules. The “resting” period between design phases 2 and 3 — and therefore well before phases 6 and 7 — is the right time to part ways with an architect who is a poor listener or acts like an arrogant “expert” versus a clueless client. Otherwise, the professional might end up building “his” house instead of “your” house. Conversely, if you consider yourself more knowledgeable about better building materials than your architect, then discuss this openly with them — you can only benefit from that!
nordanney schrieb:
In practice, things usually go quite well. But yes, of course, there are also bad apples everywhere. Given that there are eighty million self-appointed experts, the “phenomenon of hubris” among homeowners is probably no less common than among architects. Many flat-screen TV consumers are actually more knowledgeable than the sales representative and firmly believe that this applies to all fields. “My name is Lohse, I’m shopping here.”
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
nordanney schrieb:
If I have three preliminary discussions and three times hear that my wishes cannot be realized as I want, it makes me think. This can happen with both architects and general contractors—whether they are well-known (bad word) or just a modest breed.
nordanney schrieb:
And when it comes to the house, do people simply give in and either a) don’t confidently express their wishes themselves or b) accept everything as it is? Or they are simply confidently unpretentious.
nordanney schrieb:
Anyone who approaches it like that is just naive. No, it definitely depends on what someone expects for their situation and life, and what requirements they place on their house.
Whether it’s just about investing money better than in rent, simply using the financial options that mathematically lead to owning a house, building a perfectly normal family home, and so on. I wouldn’t generalize it the way it’s described here.
Most people do not discuss their home construction, their LEDs, or their finances in forums. For most, building a house is just one part of life with its ups and downs. They go to someone who has built for friends or family before, and usually everything goes fully satisfactorily. Most don’t care if they get a concrete or steel stringer staircase. The main thing is that they can get upstairs. Many don’t engage with Instagram influencer must-haves at all and do not develop a need for pull-out drawers under the stairs, a pantry, or even a guest bathroom for children. In that sense, they are very confident and happy with their affordable standard version. But they are certainly not naive; rather, they focus on other, more important things in their lives. The house is a means to an end. And if it no longer fits, the house is just as well sold as one that caused endless worries.
Actually, I just wanted to comment on this rather unfounded post, because it is full of errors and misconceptions:
Serena_Neubau schrieb:
A general contractor has the advantage of taking a lot of work off your hands. They will suggest many things to you, and then you can choose. With an architect, usually, they send you to their suppliers or craftsmen to pick things yourself. That means more work, but if you have particular wishes, it is nicer. However, it is very exhausting to have to make so many decisions yourself. Also, architects have only a limited number of suppliers and craftsmen and tend to favor certain building styles. Often, you have to handle some things yourself if you don’t want to pay a fortune to the architect.
The advantage of an architect, on the other hand, is that you usually have more time to decide and can still change many things afterwards. With a general contractor or house builder, you plan everything “last minute,” and at some point construction starts quickly… A general contractor does not take work off your hands except for offering “everything from one source with one signature.” If you want additional work or services, you have to pay for them—and you have to actively request them yourself. Otherwise, you only receive the performance regulated in the contract.
The general contractor will not suggest many options, only a few samples on a palette: selections with limited options, but also free choice of suppliers and exhibitors/tradespeople for sanitary, tiles, and so on.
Decisions regarding fittings must always be made by the client. It is risky and almost impossible for a layperson to decide how certain technical details are implemented.
There is always enough time, unless you are building a prefabricated house on order.
You do not pay a fortune to architects either.
You can also still change many things with a general contractor. Change processes come about when the client is on site and does not discuss statically relevant options. This would then be last minute—both with a general contractor and with an architect.
“And then eventually construction starts quickly…” Hehe.
I can only recommend thinking carefully beforehand about what you want and need, and what is financially feasible. And if you have several general contractors nearby, see if they can implement a reasonable standard that meets your ideas—and whether that quality is realistic. This also applies to architects, since they “use” the same regional craftsmen as the regional general contractor next door. The employed craftsmen work for their boss in the craft business, not for GC x or architect y.
Here we have a good example where a low-cost house with an outdated and dusty scope of work is dressed up as a showcase home.
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/angebotsuebersicht-und-bauleistungsbeschreibung.48939/
You will probably get a house of comparable price with a better-quality provider, only then in reasonable quality because it is already included in the fittings.
And the dozens of upgraded options you might get with an architect’s house won’t help if the finances don’t allow it.
And even architect-designed houses with refinements rarely proceed without problems: a prime example might be the Meziani family in 2016 (he is known from ‘Rote Rosen’), who had several legal disputes—and of course, the very big trouble they had with their house project is worth mentioning.
There is simply no universal answer to such open questions.
W
wiltshire20 Mar 2025 08:56MachsSelbst schrieb:
Where is the experience and confidence supposed to come from to respond to an architect who says, "Sorry, that’s not possible," with "Yes, it is possible, this is exactly what I want, and if you can’t do it, I’ll find someone else..." You don’t need experience to work well with an architect. Confidence certainly helps. What helps even more is having a clear and organized understanding of what you really want. From this clarity, you can ask focused questions and, together with those who have the expertise and experience, develop solutions — including new ones. After that, all that remains is to make decisions, which is not very difficult if your mind is clear.
Many future homeowners want to build a house but haven’t really considered the question, “Exactly what do I need it for?” Just two questions that few ask themselves and even fewer reflect on deeply: What kind of living experience do I want to have in the house? What are my basic needs and preferences that architecture can support?
Once someone has answered these questions, they can set priorities and communicate effectively with the architect. Only then does an architect have the chance to design the best possible home within the given budget for the client. An architect who loves their profession will appreciate a detailed list of functional requirements and a deep understanding of their client and will “prefer” to work on such a project rather than with a “standard client” who can only respond to a design with “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”
If someone does not have clarity or, after reflecting on their needs, realizes that a standard plan is exactly right, then a standard design is a very good option. These are proven to be functional and suitable for many people. Often, however, the better choice is to buy an already built house.