ᐅ Who has built a house with an architect? Any experiences to share?

Bauexperte schrieb:
Then you have – perhaps unconsciously – already decided to work with an architect, because with a traditional fixed-price contract for general contractor (GC)/main contractor, you won’t be able to include those "contacts" or remove both trades from the contract.

That’s not necessarily true. As is often the case, it’s not just black or white. For large companies building over 100 houses per year, that might apply. But it doesn’t hold for everyone.
Example: With our developer, we can exclude almost any trade and replace it with our own craftsmen. Currently, we are discussing having excavation and earthworks done by someone else and storing soil elsewhere, which is absolutely no problem. We simply get the costs credited. The whole process is very transparent.
I don’t see any advantage of working with an architect here. We will do a turnkey build with a local developer with a very good reputation. They build about 50–60 houses a year – somewhat larger but still small enough to accommodate such requests.

My neighbor is building with a two-person small company, and that also works. Although that is probably not a representative example. The fact is, it is possible! It depends on your developer.

Regarding site supervision and management, here’s a tip: most architects don’t want to deal with conflicts with the trades either, because you meet them again on the next project. The architect we last spoke with was on first-name terms with most of the trades… is that good or bad? Furthermore, I doubt whether an architect focused on design and aesthetics really has the technical experience to identify every construction defect.

If supervision is important to you, when building with a developer you can additionally secure yourself through a private building owners’ association or a similar body. They handle final inspections. It costs a few hundred euros (around 2000€ with contract reviews and inspections), but an architect charges more than ten times that...

For me, there is only one clear argument in favor of an architect: individuality in design. Whether that is always practical is another question. For instance, I often see architect-designed houses with the garage integrated into the building. We were told that nowadays this is considered thermal bridging and energy inefficient.

To compare: for €40,000 more, the architect would have offered 70m² (750 square feet) less living/usable space, with comparatively lower quality finishes! Forget the idea that architects make it cheaper or offer better quality for the same price. I want to meet the architect who can do that… we spoke to seven. None, absolutely none, was cheaper or offered at least the same service for the same cost. To make their calculations work, they often persuade you to skip the basement… especially here in southern Germany, building without a basement would greatly reduce property value. Southern Germany is basement country. Whether this makes sense is debatable. The fact is, it’s in demand. Only that way did the architects manage to present enough living space for the money.
Forget the myth of the affordable architect…
Of course there are good ones, no question. But working with an architect is like dining at a restaurant: whether the food tastes good and the price-performance ratio fits, you only know afterward...

Hope it helps!

xycrazy schrieb:

Example: With our developer, we can remove almost any trade and replace it with our own craftsmen. Right now, we are discussing having the excavation and digging done by someone else and storing the material elsewhere, which is no problem at all. The costs are simply credited back to us. The whole process is very transparent.

Then I will rephrase ...

WE, as construction supervisors, would not allow this—except for retroactive EL*—and would consequently decline the tempting subcontract. Over the years, I have dealt with too many problems caused by this kind of "musical chairs" approach to accept it.

For this kind of trade removal to work with a general contractor, a separate acceptance must be carried out each time—before the subcontractor’s work begins and after it is completed. Still, in the worst-case scenario, legal disputes repeatedly arise, resulting in the main contractor being held responsible, legal protections notwithstanding. As a reminder for myself not to waver in this decision, I always keep the folder with these collected "experiences" within sight on my desk; including expert opinions from court-appointed experts confirming that we bear no responsibility in the disputes in question.

I can understand your reservations about hiring an architect to a certain extent, though not entirely. Because even within this profession, there are people who master their craft very well. You can also find examples of this here on the forum! So please avoid generalizing all architects.

What I will never understand, however, is that clients—mostly complete laypeople—believe they can interfere with the construction process. For every conceivable construction method and project management style, there are companies that specialize exactly in meeting such client demands; architects above all. Yet, many potential clients try to impose their ideas of homebuilding on a professional specialized in a different field. I have often wondered if they tell their dentist which anesthesia to use.

*Retroactive EL means that the contractual relationship ends with the start of the EL of our clients.

Regards, Bauexperte

Thank you both for your responses related to my situation.

@Bauexperte, your assessment could very well be correct if that is the case.

@xycrazy It is probably important to mention that in our case, neither a prefabricated house nor a turnkey home is desired. As mentioned in another thread, a solid masonry house with some owner-performed work is planned. Whether this plays a role in the decision-making process, I don’t know.

I am generally skeptical about these review sites, much like with vacation reviews, since you rarely know who or what is being criticized. This is just my personal opinion and assessment.

When it comes to evaluating architects or construction companies, word of mouth is usually what counts most. Of course, you can appreciate the quality of some companies, but that often comes at a price.

Update: "Now Bauexperte’s further comment came into my reply"

@Bauexperte, does that also apply when building a "non-prefabricated house" or a “home not handed over turnkey”? If I may finalize the term retrospective owner labor (EL), do you mean EL that is added during the construction phase or EL that was known from the beginning?

I think as a layperson, the pros and cons of hiring an architect versus a general contractor (GC) are seen quite differently compared to someone experienced. As a layperson, one might assume that working with an architect means being independent, having an impartial inspector on hand, or having an unbiased person supporting you.

Of course, it can be both an advantage and disadvantage if, as in the example above, the architect "duzst" (uses informal address) employees of other companies. But I would not necessarily see that as a negative. It means the architect, like a GC, knows what the individual employees are capable of and whether you can rely on them or not. For larger companies, this is naturally less likely to be the case.

Häuslebau3r schrieb:

Does this also apply to the construction of a “non-prefabricated house” or a “house not delivered as turnkey”? If I may finalize the term retroactive EL, do you mean EL that is added during the construction phase or EL that was always known?

Retroactive EL means: by default, our base contract (BB) does not cover painting and flooring work, but these can be purchased at any time. If a client decides not only to have the painting and flooring work done as EL but also, for example, the drywall work, then our contract ends at the point where the drywall work would begin. This means that the tiling, sanitary and electrical final installation, as well as the installation of interior doors, would no longer be included in our scope of delivery.

Häuslebau3r schrieb:

Of course, it can be an advantage or disadvantage when the architect, as in the example above, addresses employees of other companies informally. But I don’t see this as a negative; rather, the architect, like a general contractor, knows what the individual workers can do and whether they can be relied upon or not. With larger companies, this is usually not the case.

I use informal address with many architects, experts, builders, and tradespeople—does that automatically mean they deliver poorer work? I find this assumed connection rather absurd.

Regardless of whether the house is built through an architect, general contractor, construction manager, or construction supervisor, I always recommend involving external expertise; two pairs of eyes see more than one (no reputable provider will oppose this customer request). Often this initially considered to-do fails due to costs, for which some substitute gimmicks are offered instead. Most clients characterized this way then believe their salvation lies in forums, where—importantly—help is free. Unfortunately, they often forget that without an onsite inspection or full knowledge of the construction documents, real support can rarely be provided. And—as is often the case in life—the old saying holds true that buying cheap equals buying twice equals buying expensive.

Regards, Bauexperte

Bauexperte schrieb:
Retroactive additional work means: by default, painting and flooring tasks are not included in the base contract, but can be added at any time. If a client decides not only to carry out painting and flooring as additional work, but also, for example, drywall installation under additional work, our contractual relationship ends at the moment the drywall work would be taken over. This means that tile work, sanitary and electrical fine installation, as well as the installation of interior doors would no longer be part of our scope of delivery.

Ah, okay, that clears up the question perfectly. So retroactive additional work would really be problematic. Because the extra work resulting from this can rarely be managed as additional work.

There is nothing more to add to the second part. I completely agree, and one will probably never know for sure whether it would have worked out better with one party or the other.

As a layperson, deciding between an architect or a construction company is initially very difficult and depends on which criteria you base your decision on (or should base it on). Comparisons and advice from parents and previous clients from a few years ago can become outdated over time, of course.

Häuslebau3r schrieb:

As a layperson, the decision between an architect or a construction company is initially very difficult, and it’s hard to know which criteria to base such a choice on (or should be based on).

Why limit yourself to just two options? There is a third way: taking the best of both.

Independent architects are usually much more creative than in-house planners working for building providers. Architecture developed this way—not only tailored to the plot—can be realized by any general contractor or construction company of your choice.

Best regards, Bauexperte