Hi, you have a lot of questions.
I am, among other things, co-owner of a house that has a solid brick ground floor, with a wooden house (from Finland) built on top. Built in 1978.
It is cozy but requires a lot of maintenance.
Certainly, a lot has changed in recent years. I consider a wooden house very charming—beautiful, warm, cozy. A great thing.
Now I also have a "wooden house," but only a timber frame construction. Wood as a building material impresses me overall with its excellent properties. Of course, there are pros and cons, but in my opinion, the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
Manufacturers of pure wooden houses—I am not deeply familiar with them—will hardly have any problems building a house to the KfW 55 standard.
Construction costs will not differ significantly from other building methods; please refer to other posts here in the forum for price per square meter and additional construction costs. Bauexperte has contributed a lot here with great expertise, detail, and accuracy.
Owner-builder work is often vastly overestimated. I have fallen into this trap myself.
You might paint a few walls or do small tasks. Save where you can without exhausting yourself, your nerves, or your family. Building a house is an extraordinary experience—you shouldn’t let sheer stress ruin it just to save, say, 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD). Especially since as an amateur, you will need much more time to do the work properly and with high quality. Owner-builder work only makes sense for those skilled in crafts who also have skilled family and friends to help. Otherwise, I don’t recommend it.
In my experience, it makes more sense to save on fittings and many other things without making the house sparse. Using intelligence, research, and thoroughness, you can quickly save 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD) without it being noticeable. The great thing is that it doesn’t wear you out physically or mentally.
Do you have a partner who is building the other half of the semi-detached house? Without that, it doesn’t make much sense. Then you might as well build a detached house. Especially with your requirements for outdoor and garden areas, a good plot of land (according to the development plan) of about 300–350 m² (3,200–3,800 sq ft) is sufficient. Yes, that is somewhat larger than what you would need for a semi-detached house, but you would avoid the stress of sharing it. I would advise you to build detached, even if prices are high in your area. Semi-detached houses make sense mainly in system-built construction, otherwise less so.
Happy Easter.
Best regards
Thorsten
I am, among other things, co-owner of a house that has a solid brick ground floor, with a wooden house (from Finland) built on top. Built in 1978.
It is cozy but requires a lot of maintenance.
Certainly, a lot has changed in recent years. I consider a wooden house very charming—beautiful, warm, cozy. A great thing.
Now I also have a "wooden house," but only a timber frame construction. Wood as a building material impresses me overall with its excellent properties. Of course, there are pros and cons, but in my opinion, the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
Manufacturers of pure wooden houses—I am not deeply familiar with them—will hardly have any problems building a house to the KfW 55 standard.
Construction costs will not differ significantly from other building methods; please refer to other posts here in the forum for price per square meter and additional construction costs. Bauexperte has contributed a lot here with great expertise, detail, and accuracy.
Owner-builder work is often vastly overestimated. I have fallen into this trap myself.
You might paint a few walls or do small tasks. Save where you can without exhausting yourself, your nerves, or your family. Building a house is an extraordinary experience—you shouldn’t let sheer stress ruin it just to save, say, 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD). Especially since as an amateur, you will need much more time to do the work properly and with high quality. Owner-builder work only makes sense for those skilled in crafts who also have skilled family and friends to help. Otherwise, I don’t recommend it.
In my experience, it makes more sense to save on fittings and many other things without making the house sparse. Using intelligence, research, and thoroughness, you can quickly save 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD) without it being noticeable. The great thing is that it doesn’t wear you out physically or mentally.
Do you have a partner who is building the other half of the semi-detached house? Without that, it doesn’t make much sense. Then you might as well build a detached house. Especially with your requirements for outdoor and garden areas, a good plot of land (according to the development plan) of about 300–350 m² (3,200–3,800 sq ft) is sufficient. Yes, that is somewhat larger than what you would need for a semi-detached house, but you would avoid the stress of sharing it. I would advise you to build detached, even if prices are high in your area. Semi-detached houses make sense mainly in system-built construction, otherwise less so.
Happy Easter.
Best regards
Thorsten
PS: I see you have a building partner. I missed that earlier. Sorry.
450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) for a semi-detached house is quite large. On 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft), you could build 4 semi-detached houses and still have some space left over.
You only want a terrace and a few trees. What do you plan to do with 450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) and a semi-detached house?
With that plot size, you could build 2 detached houses. Still, you could take advantage of synergies (site development, wastewater, access roads, utility connections). If the builder sells and constructs 2 houses at the same time, there is significant potential here as well.
185,000 for 450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) is quite a steep cost... Wow.
If I were you, I would seriously reconsider your approach regarding the plot or the overall plan.
450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) for a semi-detached house is quite large. On 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft), you could build 4 semi-detached houses and still have some space left over.
You only want a terrace and a few trees. What do you plan to do with 450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) and a semi-detached house?
With that plot size, you could build 2 detached houses. Still, you could take advantage of synergies (site development, wastewater, access roads, utility connections). If the builder sells and constructs 2 houses at the same time, there is significant potential here as well.
185,000 for 450 sqm (4,844 sq ft) is quite a steep cost... Wow.
If I were you, I would seriously reconsider your approach regarding the plot or the overall plan.
Talulah1234 schrieb:
We are planning to build a Swedish-style house, so a wooden semi-detached house, with each unit having about 105-120 sqm (1130-1290 sq ft) of living space, without a basement or garage.T21150 schrieb:
With that plot size, you could build two detached houses.Well, I would first check whether a semi-detached house is even allowed according to the floor area ratio and the local development plan. Plots designated for single-family houses are not always suitable for semi-detached buildings. The same applies to the facade: wood is not permitted everywhere.
And if you want to avoid complications, I would reconsider the KFW-55 standard — a lot of money goes into meeting this standard, including the mandatory installation of underfloor heating, among other things...
Happy Easter!
T
Talulah123427 Mar 2016 12:11Thanks for your answers!
So, this is a large plot of land measuring 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft), which is already being offered divided. The two plots, 400 and 500 sqm (4,306 and 5,382 sq ft), are listed separately on the real estate agent’s website. Both descriptions state “according to the development plan, a maximum of 2 residential units are allowed” and “two-story semi-detached house possible.” This means that you can buy a 500 sqm (5,382 sq ft) plot and build a duplex, resulting in two residential units, right? Each unit would then have 250 sqm (2,691 sq ft) of land, minus the built-up area (which personally I find sufficient as garden space).
Where can I find out if I’m allowed to build a wooden house? I can’t really imagine that this would be an issue here, but you do have to clarify that in advance somehow — I hadn’t thought about that at all, thanks for the tip!
So, this is a large plot of land measuring 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft), which is already being offered divided. The two plots, 400 and 500 sqm (4,306 and 5,382 sq ft), are listed separately on the real estate agent’s website. Both descriptions state “according to the development plan, a maximum of 2 residential units are allowed” and “two-story semi-detached house possible.” This means that you can buy a 500 sqm (5,382 sq ft) plot and build a duplex, resulting in two residential units, right? Each unit would then have 250 sqm (2,691 sq ft) of land, minus the built-up area (which personally I find sufficient as garden space).
Where can I find out if I’m allowed to build a wooden house? I can’t really imagine that this would be an issue here, but you do have to clarify that in advance somehow — I hadn’t thought about that at all, thanks for the tip!
R
Renchtalsteig5 Feb 2018 13:28We built a Rörvikshus house in 2017, unfortunately with almost exclusively negative experiences regarding both quality and customer service.
In Germany, these houses are sold through so-called "house agents," who claim to oversee the project as construction managers until the turnkey handover.
However, all trades are ultimately contracted solely under the responsibility of the homeowner.
The Rörvikshus website gives the impression that the houses comply with KfW standards (German energy efficiency standards).
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
A second measurement using a blower door test showed that the building’s airtightness does not meet the requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance.
The response from Rörvikshus was dismissive: "The contractually owed service is... the manufacture, delivery, and assembly of the prefabricated building shell." "...Even if it turns out that the results of the blower door test do not meet the KfW requirements... this is not the responsibility of Rörvikshus."
So it does not matter at all if leaking windows and doors were installed, which are delivered as finished units with the wall from Sweden.
Support and defect remediation from the company are practically non-existent.
They only want to communicate through lawyers.
The other defects related to selection of materials, terrace decking, and so on would fill another page.
My advice: The sparse contract documents should be carefully reviewed and supplemented before signing.
Make sure the wording is legally enforceable. The documents presented in Sweden ultimately have no binding effect.
Do not let yourself be pressured by invitations in Sweden and do not sign on site after only briefly reading the documents.
In Germany, these houses are sold through so-called "house agents," who claim to oversee the project as construction managers until the turnkey handover.
However, all trades are ultimately contracted solely under the responsibility of the homeowner.
The Rörvikshus website gives the impression that the houses comply with KfW standards (German energy efficiency standards).
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
A second measurement using a blower door test showed that the building’s airtightness does not meet the requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance.
The response from Rörvikshus was dismissive: "The contractually owed service is... the manufacture, delivery, and assembly of the prefabricated building shell." "...Even if it turns out that the results of the blower door test do not meet the KfW requirements... this is not the responsibility of Rörvikshus."
So it does not matter at all if leaking windows and doors were installed, which are delivered as finished units with the wall from Sweden.
Support and defect remediation from the company are practically non-existent.
They only want to communicate through lawyers.
The other defects related to selection of materials, terrace decking, and so on would fill another page.
My advice: The sparse contract documents should be carefully reviewed and supplemented before signing.
Make sure the wording is legally enforceable. The documents presented in Sweden ultimately have no binding effect.
Do not let yourself be pressured by invitations in Sweden and do not sign on site after only briefly reading the documents.
Renchtalsteig schrieb:
"The contractual obligation is ... the construction, delivery, and assembly of the building shell of a prefabricated house." Yes, you are pointing out important and often overlooked aspects: the EU single market does not change the fact that the legal frameworks commonly used in Germany, such as the VOB (German Construction Contract Procedures) and the Building Code, are national laws. If the place where the contract is concluded is abroad, one can easily face unfamiliar legal systems, which local lawyers are often not well versed in.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics