Hello everyone,
As I mentioned in another post, we are considering building a house (1.5 floors plus basement; solid construction; plot of land available).
We have already had initial discussions with a local developer. For various reasons, we are unfortunately not really "enthusiastic" about this option (the contact person was very pushy, the supposedly detailed cost breakdown was a bad joke, etc.).
Now, some friends have advised us to build with an independent architect instead of a developer to save costs. The idea is that the architect would also take on construction supervision (including a construction log, etc.) and ideally coordinate the different trades.
Regardless of the approach, we want to contribute some work ourselves!
We have two main concerns. First, we were told that an architect can only provide an overall price estimate, whereas a developer offers a price guarantee (yes, of course, additional costs will arise here and there in both cases). Second, we cannot imagine that an architect who also takes on construction supervision and coordination would actually be cheaper than a developer.
Can you confirm or contradict this information we have? Do you have any general insights on this topic? Managing coordination ourselves would be incredibly difficult due to professional and personal reasons. Should this responsibility be handled by one knowledgeable person rather than multiple people?
Among our friends, everyone has built with developers, so we have no direct comparison.
A “let’s just give it a try” approach is out of the question for us given the sums involved. We also need a concrete figure before approaching the bank.
I hope you can provide some helpful advice here. Maybe there is one or more (former) homebuilders who have already built (or are building) with an independent architect.
Best regards,
Hausbau18
As I mentioned in another post, we are considering building a house (1.5 floors plus basement; solid construction; plot of land available).
We have already had initial discussions with a local developer. For various reasons, we are unfortunately not really "enthusiastic" about this option (the contact person was very pushy, the supposedly detailed cost breakdown was a bad joke, etc.).
Now, some friends have advised us to build with an independent architect instead of a developer to save costs. The idea is that the architect would also take on construction supervision (including a construction log, etc.) and ideally coordinate the different trades.
Regardless of the approach, we want to contribute some work ourselves!
We have two main concerns. First, we were told that an architect can only provide an overall price estimate, whereas a developer offers a price guarantee (yes, of course, additional costs will arise here and there in both cases). Second, we cannot imagine that an architect who also takes on construction supervision and coordination would actually be cheaper than a developer.
Can you confirm or contradict this information we have? Do you have any general insights on this topic? Managing coordination ourselves would be incredibly difficult due to professional and personal reasons. Should this responsibility be handled by one knowledgeable person rather than multiple people?
Among our friends, everyone has built with developers, so we have no direct comparison.
A “let’s just give it a try” approach is out of the question for us given the sums involved. We also need a concrete figure before approaching the bank.
I hope you can provide some helpful advice here. Maybe there is one or more (former) homebuilders who have already built (or are building) with an independent architect.
Best regards,
Hausbau18
It’s incredible how the contractor’s profit is simply assumed, and a number is stated without basis. The next person then takes it as a definite fact!
By the way, the architect needs to be paid as well.
I believe that the cost of good service should not be the deciding factor when choosing who to build with. Both parties need to be paid because that is their job and how they make a living. General contractors usually have more employees.
By the way, the architect needs to be paid as well.
I believe that the cost of good service should not be the deciding factor when choosing who to build with. Both parties need to be paid because that is their job and how they make a living. General contractors usually have more employees.
S
stefanc8417 Oct 2017 13:56Sorry, I actually didn’t mean profit, but rather €60,000 (about $65,000) for themselves AND their expenses/labor. I wanted to compare this figure, which did not come from me (!), to the mentioned €45,000 (about $49,000) for the architect.
However, for the same house with a fixed construction specification, we received offers that differed by as much as €80,000 (about $87,000), without any obvious differences to us! And we didn’t even request quotes from the reportedly most expensive companies! So, if you assume that the general contractor (GC) who stayed realistic is satisfied with a €20,000 (about $22,000) profit, then other candidates could be charging an estimated €100,000 (about $109,000). If they really have €80,000 (about $87,000) higher costs, then they must be doing something wrong...
I believe the market allows for this. I even know people who build with such companies. They inherited wealth and approached it with the mindset “big money should get big help.” Well, what can I say? So far, they have had more problems than others who paid only half with a volume builder like Town & Country (for a smaller house, of course).
Do I want to give a general recommendation for cheap or expensive GCs? No, but I do recommend transparency from an architect or construction manager.
However, for the same house with a fixed construction specification, we received offers that differed by as much as €80,000 (about $87,000), without any obvious differences to us! And we didn’t even request quotes from the reportedly most expensive companies! So, if you assume that the general contractor (GC) who stayed realistic is satisfied with a €20,000 (about $22,000) profit, then other candidates could be charging an estimated €100,000 (about $109,000). If they really have €80,000 (about $87,000) higher costs, then they must be doing something wrong...
I believe the market allows for this. I even know people who build with such companies. They inherited wealth and approached it with the mindset “big money should get big help.” Well, what can I say? So far, they have had more problems than others who paid only half with a volume builder like Town & Country (for a smaller house, of course).
Do I want to give a general recommendation for cheap or expensive GCs? No, but I do recommend transparency from an architect or construction manager.
S
stefanc8417 Oct 2017 19:13Okay, that's true, general contractors have reserved quotas with their subcontractors and can sometimes start work immediately.
S
stefanc8417 Oct 2017 19:55Yes, but not across the board. For us, it was indeed 12 months from the initial contact, "Hello, we're here and would like to work with you," and 4 months from signing the contract. But we also have neighbors who, working with a general contractor, only had to wait a short time for the building permit / planning permission, and then construction started immediately. Or take Town & Country, where the promise is, I believe, 4 weeks from signing.
As much as I’ve been frustrated over the past months that nothing was progressing, I have to say that if things had started right away, we would have handled many things differently. On the other hand, we still had several months to think things through thoroughly. For such a large investment, that’s not really a bad thing.
As much as I’ve been frustrated over the past months that nothing was progressing, I have to say that if things had started right away, we would have handled many things differently. On the other hand, we still had several months to think things through thoroughly. For such a large investment, that’s not really a bad thing.