ᐅ Semi-detached house – Which type is best? Does anyone have experience with this?
Created on: 8 Oct 2018 11:18
D
Dirk78
Hello everyone,
I am currently considering building a duplex and am looking for ideas on how it could or should be constructed to ensure a sustainable building in the long term. Of course, it also has to remain affordable.
On the internet and from building planners, you often hear that "this particular method" is the best, depending on the preferences of the contact person. Perhaps someone here can share how they built theirs or what could be done better or differently, so I can get a clearer picture for myself.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to help!
Best regards,
Dirk78
I am currently considering building a duplex and am looking for ideas on how it could or should be constructed to ensure a sustainable building in the long term. Of course, it also has to remain affordable.
On the internet and from building planners, you often hear that "this particular method" is the best, depending on the preferences of the contact person. Perhaps someone here can share how they built theirs or what could be done better or differently, so I can get a clearer picture for myself.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to help!
Best regards,
Dirk78
The idea of looking for a breakeven point, even though being 5% behind the latest state of the art would already be a perfect solution, no longer requires the collective intelligence of a forum to clarify today. This was settled a long time ago by a certain Pareto.
That is nonsense given your motivation, because that creates a significantly more elaborate external layer than plaster and is inefficient as an energetically sensible wall layer. Structurally, it is misleading to pretend a house is built in NF brick format when it actually consists of large-format building blocks that cover three steps in one course.
Sustainability and solid wood construction never go together, because wood only renews itself if you cheat on the time factor: if a tree trunk grows for 200 years and you build your house from squared beams, the cross-section used has actually grown for over 300 years. If the house then lasts less time—for example, because people like you who promote sustainability based on their self-perception prefer to rebuild rather than bring it economically to a zero-energy standard—then the claim of renewability was already false.
It does not help then if the construction workers come to the site in carpooling electric cars powered by clean nuclear energy.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Dirk78 schrieb:
but wood preferably with clinker bricks...
That is nonsense given your motivation, because that creates a significantly more elaborate external layer than plaster and is inefficient as an energetically sensible wall layer. Structurally, it is misleading to pretend a house is built in NF brick format when it actually consists of large-format building blocks that cover three steps in one course.
Sustainability and solid wood construction never go together, because wood only renews itself if you cheat on the time factor: if a tree trunk grows for 200 years and you build your house from squared beams, the cross-section used has actually grown for over 300 years. If the house then lasts less time—for example, because people like you who promote sustainability based on their self-perception prefer to rebuild rather than bring it economically to a zero-energy standard—then the claim of renewability was already false.
It does not help then if the construction workers come to the site in carpooling electric cars powered by clean nuclear energy.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
The idea of trying to find a breakeven point, even though staying 5% behind the latest state of the art would already be the key solution, doesn’t require the collective intelligence of a forum to clarify today. This was settled a long time ago by a certain Pareto.
Given your motivation, this makes no sense, as this is a considerably more elaborate finish layer than plaster and inefficient as an energy-effective wall layer. From a construction perspective, it is deceptive to pretend a house is built with NF (normal format) bricks when it is actually made of larger plan blocks that cover three steps at once in each layer.
Sustainability and solid wood never go together, because wood only regrows if you fudge the time factor: if a tree trunk grows for 200 years and you build your house with squared beams from it, the utilized cross section has effectively grown for over 300 years. If the house then lasts for a shorter time—for example, because people who consider themselves sustainability advocates like you prefer to rebuild rather than renovate due to the argument that renovation can hardly reach new build standards—then the idea of regrowth was already a lie.
It doesn’t help if construction workers carpool to the site in clean nuclear-powered electric vehicles. Again ... nobody “has to” waste their time here and I don’t want to bother anyone!
If you don’t like it, 11ant, then don’t let it occupy your time...
Thanks to everyone else for the suggestions!
C
Caspar20208 Oct 2018 17:36Dirk78 schrieb:
Low energy consumption means (to me) that the energy doesn’t need to be generated at all, right?!Yes; and this is not really the case with new construction, since the raw materials for the new building don’t just come out of thin air.
DirkB schrieb:
Exactly those long distances are what I want to avoidThen, as I said, in new construction it will be significantly more than you want to spend.
Caspar2020 schrieb:
Yes; and in new construction that is not the case anyway, since the raw materials for new builds don’t just come out of nowhere.
As mentioned, the cost in new builds will be significantly higher than what you want to spend. Can you specify that more precisely?
Obstlerbaum schrieb:
Hmm, Nienburg to Süderelbe is over 100km (62 miles) by car. Does that make FFM part of the "extremely strongly expanded commuter belt of Hamburg"? What does Nienburg have to do with it? By the way, the Hamburg S-Bahn goes to Stade.
On topic: I’m building quite a bit further from Hamburg (you could say flat Lower Saxony), but larger (170 sqm (1830 sq ft)). However, I’m not focusing too much on sustainability and will meet the KFW55 standard without getting it officially certified. As of today (before construction starts), the total cost will be around 400k without the plot (otherwise all inclusive with some extras, landscaping, and all upgrades).
DirkB schrieb:
Can you specify that more precisely?120 sqm (approximately 1,292 sq ft) x 2 x 2,000 = 480,000 euros
+ exterior work + basement + garage/carport + additional construction costs + higher energy standard + more expensive materials (e.g., clay plaster) minus own labor
You want to spend a maximum of 600,000 euros minus the cost of the plot.
Without a calculator, that is a significant difference.
Similar topics