Hello dear forum members,
we have been working for some time with our architects to design our dream house. With the third version, we have finally found the floor plan we want.
Now our problem: the cost estimate is unfortunately above our budget. Since the cost estimate was based on the building volume (gross internal volume), the architects suggested the following ways to save costs:
- Reducing the floor area
- Instead of a traditional gable roof spanning the full width of the house (version 1), a recessed gable roof (version 2) is planned. The smaller roof reduces the building volume and thus the cost estimate.
The house (2 full stories) has a floor area of 10.2 x 12m (33.5 x 39.4 ft). The gable roof is designed with a pitch of 30° and will have exposed rafters.
Has anyone already built such a recessed gable roof? Are there really significant cost savings possible with this?
Our concerns:
Is it really possible to keep such a gable roof combined with a flat roof permanently watertight? Or does the implementation require so much effort that there are actually no savings left?
I read quite a bit online about the costs of flat roofs and gable roofs, and the general opinion seems to be that flat roofs are not cheaper than gable roofs. Does this type of construction really save costs?
Thank you very much in advance for your help and opinions.
we have been working for some time with our architects to design our dream house. With the third version, we have finally found the floor plan we want.
Now our problem: the cost estimate is unfortunately above our budget. Since the cost estimate was based on the building volume (gross internal volume), the architects suggested the following ways to save costs:
- Reducing the floor area
- Instead of a traditional gable roof spanning the full width of the house (version 1), a recessed gable roof (version 2) is planned. The smaller roof reduces the building volume and thus the cost estimate.
The house (2 full stories) has a floor area of 10.2 x 12m (33.5 x 39.4 ft). The gable roof is designed with a pitch of 30° and will have exposed rafters.
Has anyone already built such a recessed gable roof? Are there really significant cost savings possible with this?
Our concerns:
Is it really possible to keep such a gable roof combined with a flat roof permanently watertight? Or does the implementation require so much effort that there are actually no savings left?
I read quite a bit online about the costs of flat roofs and gable roofs, and the general opinion seems to be that flat roofs are not cheaper than gable roofs. Does this type of construction really save costs?
Thank you very much in advance for your help and opinions.
B
Bauexperte24 Jul 2016 13:17Payday schrieb:
instead of 10x12m (33x39 feet) just take 10x11.5m (33x38 feet) and save 10 sqm (108 sq ft) = 20,000€. This calculation is absolutely not correct!
It depends on *where* the reduction in the house is made; we are often talking about savings of only €800.00/sqm (74 sq ft).
So please be more cautious with recommendations!
Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
This calculation is absolutely not correct!
It depends on *where* in the house you reduce; sometimes we even talk about *only* €800.00 per square meter savings.
So please be more cautious with recommendations!
BauexperteThe purpose of this rough calculation is precisely that it doesn’t matter where the reductions are made. Otherwise, the €2000 per square meter would not be a rough estimate but would depend on many different parameters. A small house usually costs more per square meter than a large house because certain things are always needed in the same quantity (for example, a heating system for 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) does not cost half as much as one for 200 m² (2,153 sq ft)).Therefore, it is fair to say that saving 10 m² (108 sq ft) can result in approximately €15,000–20,000 in savings. In any case, this is a much more solid basis than simply choosing a smaller roof based on calculations alone...
If you want exact figures and reliable planning security, you need to sign a general contractor agreement. (That is, to build with a general contractor.)
Payday schrieb:
... a small house usually costs more per square meter than a large house because some things occur the same number of times regardless of size (for example, a heating system for 100cm (5 inches) costs not half as much as for 200cm (10 inches)).
and that is why one can .....)And exactly for that reason, the OP will save less than in your rough calculation, since they probably planned a bit too many square meters that could be reduced.
B
Bauexperte24 Jul 2016 22:43Good evening,
When calculating backwards, it looks quite different; here, it must be considered where the reductions are made in or on the house. If the bathroom is reduced, the savings are greater; if the living room is affected instead, the savings are less.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Payday schrieb:The purpose of a rough calculation is to roughly estimate the total house price. This implies an overall price per square meter. The value used for the living room is certainly not accurate, and it is too low for the bathroom; relatively speaking, however, it is correct.
The point of this rough calculation is that it doesn’t matter where the cuts are made. Otherwise, the 2000€/m² (2000€/10.8 sq ft) wouldn’t just be a rough estimate but would depend on many parameters.
When calculating backwards, it looks quite different; here, it must be considered where the reductions are made in or on the house. If the bathroom is reduced, the savings are greater; if the living room is affected instead, the savings are less.
Payday schrieb:Neither of those is true, even if you stomp your foot.
and that’s why you can say that saving 10m² (108 sq ft) can result in about €15,000–20,000 savings. This is definitely much more reliable than just choosing a smaller roof mathematically...
Payday schrieb:If you want precise information, you get quotes.
if you want exact planning certainty, you have to sign a general contractor contract. (i.e. build with a GC)
Best regards, Bauexperte
U
Username_wahl24 Jul 2016 23:11To the thread starter: What is your budget and how much is the house supposed to cost? We originally wanted the architect to design one for 250,000 including additional building costs (which unfortunately was unrealistic). Now we are at 380,000 and still not finished... This was only possible with family financial support and a good income.
Hello everyone,
Thank you very much for the numerous responses. Unfortunately, we are also unclear why option 2 is supposed to be more cost-effective. Since the volume in option 2 is about 82m³ (2,900 ft³) less, this results in a cost estimate reduction of approximately €33,000 and a lower architect’s fee.
As I was on vacation this week, I was only able to briefly check with our architect by phone. The explanation for the cost savings was: shorter beams, less surface area that needs plastering, and so on. However, I will follow up again tomorrow and request a more detailed cost calculation for both options.
@MarcWen: I had the same idea—that with 181m³ (6,390 ft³) for the roof, we would have an estimated cost saving of about €73,000, which would bring us back into the safe zone...
Thank you very much for the numerous responses. Unfortunately, we are also unclear why option 2 is supposed to be more cost-effective. Since the volume in option 2 is about 82m³ (2,900 ft³) less, this results in a cost estimate reduction of approximately €33,000 and a lower architect’s fee.
As I was on vacation this week, I was only able to briefly check with our architect by phone. The explanation for the cost savings was: shorter beams, less surface area that needs plastering, and so on. However, I will follow up again tomorrow and request a more detailed cost calculation for both options.
@MarcWen: I had the same idea—that with 181m³ (6,390 ft³) for the roof, we would have an estimated cost saving of about €73,000, which would bring us back into the safe zone...
Similar topics