Hello everyone,
I’m new here and would like to introduce myself/us and share our current situation:
I am 44 and my partner is 46. We currently live with our 1.5-year-old son in my condominium (107 sqm (1150 sq ft); purchased before we met). Since my partner has a one-hour commute each way and we have both had a long-standing interest in owning a house with a garden, we decided to buy a house roughly midway between our workplaces.
Initially, we planned to buy an existing property, but after viewing several, we increasingly felt that for a bit more money, we could get significantly more value with a new build (although I’m starting to doubt our assessment now, but oh well). The high additional costs, some of which were hard to verify, were also off-putting.
So, in September 2019, we put our name on the waiting list for a new development and have now actually secured the plot we liked best from the available options. We signed the purchase contract about a month ago.
Months before, we had already talked to banks and home builders and visited show home villages to get a sense of current houses. The banks gave us the go-ahead for a rough budget, while the builders understandably said they couldn’t meaningfully start discussions until the plot was confirmed.
Now, we’ve presented our plot (which we have also had professionally surveyed). It is important for us to build with a local provider.
Currently, three builders are in the running (plus a larger prefab house builder as a possible fourth, potentially cheaper option). We have received floor plan proposals from all three; one produced a plan for a house in a similar location, while the other two created rough floor plans based on our ideas (which we also received).
Our big dilemma is that we can’t decide which builder to proceed with.
Two of the companies build solid/masonry houses, and one builds timber frame houses. Intuitively, we both feel masonry houses are of better quality (which might now just be a prejudice depending on the builder?), but the same gut feeling trusts the timber frame builder most. We naturally also asked around, and it was thanks to recommendations that we found these three/four options.
Each has its pros and cons for us:
Masonry 1: So far, we have mostly been in contact with a seemingly competent sales rep rather than those who will actually build with and for us (site manager, etc.). They did quite a bit of preliminary work—asking about our wishes and having the architect create a special floor plan—but without fully considering the site’s challenges. Unfortunately, we’ve heard from an acquaintance that they are having problems towards the end (crooked walls, many windows cracked during installation, subcontractors not as local as promised, etc.). Two acquaintances also report that costs significantly exceeded the contract price.
Masonry 2: Didn’t put much effort into planning or our wishes; the floor plan pulled from the drawer at the second meeting might actually be okay, but we spent the entire first meeting discussing a plan that had nothing to do with what we wanted. He simply didn’t listen to our ideas. Advantage: He knows the development very well as he has built several houses there. Everyone we spoke with had very positive things to say about the company. Our contact person is co-owner and also site manager, so we already know who we would be dealing with. Since we’ve only had evening appointments, he seemed exhausted and not particularly attentive—maybe just bad timing.
Timber 1: The whole team gives a sincere, open, and professionally sound impression. The company is seemingly located deep in the woods, where the wood is processed onsite. Their architect personally visited our plot. He also pointed out many structural and legal aspects. The design he presented some weeks later incorporated our wishes as much as possible and included some nice ideas. They also directed us to an ongoing site where they are building a single-family house on a slope, which we visited today to get an impression of the finished product.
Timber 2: Like Masonry 1, we have only talked to a sales rep here. It is a smaller prefab home company, but with a house in a show village where we also met for a discussion. The gentleman took almost three hours for us, and we learned a lot about general costs and other aspects. The company offers both pre-configured homes and custom designs. The main advantage here is likely a somewhat lower price while still building more solidly than much of the prefab competition. Acquaintances who searched for a year for a suitable builder, and were quite picky, chose this company and are happy so far.
Regarding how it feels to work with them, we would currently prefer Timber 1. But we are unsure if we can imagine building with wood. My main concerns are faster depreciation and potentially lower long-term value. Is that a misconception? Are there good and bad timber frame builders? Also, the house with this company wouldn’t be cheaper or ready to move into faster than with the masonry builders. The company always points to the excellent indoor climate in a timber house. But is that really noticeable?
This company works with separate offers: one for planning including submitting the building permit / planning permission, then a separate one for construction. So we could at least have them design the house, but does it make sense to take that plan to another builder afterward?
(In general, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled about the offer prices—maybe I was a bit naive. Anyway, all three builders want approximately €500,000 to €550,000 net for a turnkey house with about 160 to 180 sqm (1700 to 1937 sq ft) of living space and a double garage (although one does not even include underground garage construction). That’s actually too much for our budget, and we need to see where we can save €50,000. But that’s not the topic of this post.)
Very long text—my questions:
- How do you assess the quality of such custom timber frame houses?
- How important is a good feeling about the builder to you? Would you weigh that more heavily than (possibly irrational) concerns about the building material?
Thank you very much for your thoughts! We really can’t make progress and appreciate any input.
I don’t know if it makes sense for this thread to fill in the data, but just in case, here are the details.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 791 sqm (8509 sq ft)
Slope: yes
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Building envelope, building line & boundary: see attachment
Number of parking spaces: 2 (double garage planned)
Storeys: 2–2.5 (garden level/partial basement, ground floor, and possibly half attic as a gallery with an open space above the ground floor)
Roof style: gable roof (35–42° specified)
Orientation: open
Maximum heights/limits: ridge height: 6.5 m (21 ft 3 in); full height: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
Other requirements: distance from house to street approx. 4.5 m (15 ft); (site slopes downward from street)
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type:
Unfortunately, we are restricted to a gable roof by the development plan; otherwise, I would have chosen a clear Bauhaus-style form.
Basement, storeys:
Garden level with 1/4 basement and 3/4 sleeping areas. Above, ground floor living spaces and possibly half an attic (gallery with open space and one room).
Number of occupants, ages:
3–4 persons: 44 and 46 years old; son 1.5 years and partner’s 12-year-old daughter (who either stays every other weekend or lives there full-time).
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Because the garage will likely require a basement due to the slope, we planned the basement (storage, possibly workshop) there with access from both the garden side and the house. The garden/basement level itself would contain the utility and laundry room, three bedrooms, and the main bathroom. On the ground floor (level with the street and also accessible from the garage), the living area with kitchen, open living and dining area, pantry/utility room, an office/guest room, and a guest bathroom are planned. An architect from one builder showed us the option of a half attic as a gallery with open ceiling over the living area plus a small room (guest room/office), which I really like.
Office: family use or home office?
Home office will definitely be used partly.
Overnight guests per year:
Hard to say, but a small guest room is planned.
Open or closed architecture:
Rather open in the living area, with an emphasis on views to the unobstructed, sloping greenery (southeast) through high ceilings (no intermediate ceiling there) and large windows.
Open kitchen, kitchen island:
Kitchen can be separated with a sliding door; kitchen island not necessary.
Number of dining seats:
6
Fireplace:
Preferred (or stove), but not mandatory.
Music/speaker wall:
Yes
Balcony, roof terrace:
Balcony on the ground floor facing southeast (preferably partially integrated into the house), south.
Garage, carport:
Garage preferred.
Utility garden, greenhouse:
Partly utility garden, partly space for digging and attractive landscaping, partly play space for our son.
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, including reasons for choices or exclusions:
We envision a KfW55-equivalent house with a (prepared) photovoltaic system.
I want the ground floor designed so that if mobility decreases later, we don’t have to move immediately and can live on one level. Therefore, an extra room on the ground floor is a must, currently for an office/guest room and later convertible to a bedroom. The guest bathroom should also have a shower for the same reason, and somewhere on the ground floor a washing machine connection should be considered.
I tend towards spaciousness and lots of living space with many rooms, but unfortunately, the budget limits that significantly. My partner is more minimalistic and wouldn’t mind if the house wasn’t too large.
I’m new here and would like to introduce myself/us and share our current situation:
I am 44 and my partner is 46. We currently live with our 1.5-year-old son in my condominium (107 sqm (1150 sq ft); purchased before we met). Since my partner has a one-hour commute each way and we have both had a long-standing interest in owning a house with a garden, we decided to buy a house roughly midway between our workplaces.
Initially, we planned to buy an existing property, but after viewing several, we increasingly felt that for a bit more money, we could get significantly more value with a new build (although I’m starting to doubt our assessment now, but oh well). The high additional costs, some of which were hard to verify, were also off-putting.
So, in September 2019, we put our name on the waiting list for a new development and have now actually secured the plot we liked best from the available options. We signed the purchase contract about a month ago.
Months before, we had already talked to banks and home builders and visited show home villages to get a sense of current houses. The banks gave us the go-ahead for a rough budget, while the builders understandably said they couldn’t meaningfully start discussions until the plot was confirmed.
Now, we’ve presented our plot (which we have also had professionally surveyed). It is important for us to build with a local provider.
Currently, three builders are in the running (plus a larger prefab house builder as a possible fourth, potentially cheaper option). We have received floor plan proposals from all three; one produced a plan for a house in a similar location, while the other two created rough floor plans based on our ideas (which we also received).
Our big dilemma is that we can’t decide which builder to proceed with.
Two of the companies build solid/masonry houses, and one builds timber frame houses. Intuitively, we both feel masonry houses are of better quality (which might now just be a prejudice depending on the builder?), but the same gut feeling trusts the timber frame builder most. We naturally also asked around, and it was thanks to recommendations that we found these three/four options.
Each has its pros and cons for us:
Masonry 1: So far, we have mostly been in contact with a seemingly competent sales rep rather than those who will actually build with and for us (site manager, etc.). They did quite a bit of preliminary work—asking about our wishes and having the architect create a special floor plan—but without fully considering the site’s challenges. Unfortunately, we’ve heard from an acquaintance that they are having problems towards the end (crooked walls, many windows cracked during installation, subcontractors not as local as promised, etc.). Two acquaintances also report that costs significantly exceeded the contract price.
Masonry 2: Didn’t put much effort into planning or our wishes; the floor plan pulled from the drawer at the second meeting might actually be okay, but we spent the entire first meeting discussing a plan that had nothing to do with what we wanted. He simply didn’t listen to our ideas. Advantage: He knows the development very well as he has built several houses there. Everyone we spoke with had very positive things to say about the company. Our contact person is co-owner and also site manager, so we already know who we would be dealing with. Since we’ve only had evening appointments, he seemed exhausted and not particularly attentive—maybe just bad timing.
Timber 1: The whole team gives a sincere, open, and professionally sound impression. The company is seemingly located deep in the woods, where the wood is processed onsite. Their architect personally visited our plot. He also pointed out many structural and legal aspects. The design he presented some weeks later incorporated our wishes as much as possible and included some nice ideas. They also directed us to an ongoing site where they are building a single-family house on a slope, which we visited today to get an impression of the finished product.
Timber 2: Like Masonry 1, we have only talked to a sales rep here. It is a smaller prefab home company, but with a house in a show village where we also met for a discussion. The gentleman took almost three hours for us, and we learned a lot about general costs and other aspects. The company offers both pre-configured homes and custom designs. The main advantage here is likely a somewhat lower price while still building more solidly than much of the prefab competition. Acquaintances who searched for a year for a suitable builder, and were quite picky, chose this company and are happy so far.
Regarding how it feels to work with them, we would currently prefer Timber 1. But we are unsure if we can imagine building with wood. My main concerns are faster depreciation and potentially lower long-term value. Is that a misconception? Are there good and bad timber frame builders? Also, the house with this company wouldn’t be cheaper or ready to move into faster than with the masonry builders. The company always points to the excellent indoor climate in a timber house. But is that really noticeable?
This company works with separate offers: one for planning including submitting the building permit / planning permission, then a separate one for construction. So we could at least have them design the house, but does it make sense to take that plan to another builder afterward?
(In general, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled about the offer prices—maybe I was a bit naive. Anyway, all three builders want approximately €500,000 to €550,000 net for a turnkey house with about 160 to 180 sqm (1700 to 1937 sq ft) of living space and a double garage (although one does not even include underground garage construction). That’s actually too much for our budget, and we need to see where we can save €50,000. But that’s not the topic of this post.)
Very long text—my questions:
- How do you assess the quality of such custom timber frame houses?
- How important is a good feeling about the builder to you? Would you weigh that more heavily than (possibly irrational) concerns about the building material?
Thank you very much for your thoughts! We really can’t make progress and appreciate any input.
I don’t know if it makes sense for this thread to fill in the data, but just in case, here are the details.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 791 sqm (8509 sq ft)
Slope: yes
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Building envelope, building line & boundary: see attachment
Number of parking spaces: 2 (double garage planned)
Storeys: 2–2.5 (garden level/partial basement, ground floor, and possibly half attic as a gallery with an open space above the ground floor)
Roof style: gable roof (35–42° specified)
Orientation: open
Maximum heights/limits: ridge height: 6.5 m (21 ft 3 in); full height: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
Other requirements: distance from house to street approx. 4.5 m (15 ft); (site slopes downward from street)
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type:
Unfortunately, we are restricted to a gable roof by the development plan; otherwise, I would have chosen a clear Bauhaus-style form.
Basement, storeys:
Garden level with 1/4 basement and 3/4 sleeping areas. Above, ground floor living spaces and possibly half an attic (gallery with open space and one room).
Number of occupants, ages:
3–4 persons: 44 and 46 years old; son 1.5 years and partner’s 12-year-old daughter (who either stays every other weekend or lives there full-time).
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Because the garage will likely require a basement due to the slope, we planned the basement (storage, possibly workshop) there with access from both the garden side and the house. The garden/basement level itself would contain the utility and laundry room, three bedrooms, and the main bathroom. On the ground floor (level with the street and also accessible from the garage), the living area with kitchen, open living and dining area, pantry/utility room, an office/guest room, and a guest bathroom are planned. An architect from one builder showed us the option of a half attic as a gallery with open ceiling over the living area plus a small room (guest room/office), which I really like.
Office: family use or home office?
Home office will definitely be used partly.
Overnight guests per year:
Hard to say, but a small guest room is planned.
Open or closed architecture:
Rather open in the living area, with an emphasis on views to the unobstructed, sloping greenery (southeast) through high ceilings (no intermediate ceiling there) and large windows.
Open kitchen, kitchen island:
Kitchen can be separated with a sliding door; kitchen island not necessary.
Number of dining seats:
6
Fireplace:
Preferred (or stove), but not mandatory.
Music/speaker wall:
Yes
Balcony, roof terrace:
Balcony on the ground floor facing southeast (preferably partially integrated into the house), south.
Garage, carport:
Garage preferred.
Utility garden, greenhouse:
Partly utility garden, partly space for digging and attractive landscaping, partly play space for our son.
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, including reasons for choices or exclusions:
We envision a KfW55-equivalent house with a (prepared) photovoltaic system.
I want the ground floor designed so that if mobility decreases later, we don’t have to move immediately and can live on one level. Therefore, an extra room on the ground floor is a must, currently for an office/guest room and later convertible to a bedroom. The guest bathroom should also have a shower for the same reason, and somewhere on the ground floor a washing machine connection should be considered.
I tend towards spaciousness and lots of living space with many rooms, but unfortunately, the budget limits that significantly. My partner is more minimalistic and wouldn’t mind if the house wasn’t too large.
JayneCobb schrieb:
What are the reasons for moving the living space downstairs? JayneCobb schrieb:
Is it the proximity to the garden? The proximity to the garden!
The garden needs to be planted, maintained, and used. You often do this in between other activities. You don’t just grill there. Sometimes you sit on the terrace for 10 minutes, go to the shrubs, prune here, water there... all on the side whenever you have time. While the potatoes are boiling on the stove, for example. With children, there are more situations: they play in the paddling pool, need juice or a plaster, or have to go to the bathroom. The garden becomes a living space... actually, it IS a living space. The terrace is d
JayneCobb schrieb:
We want to build an outdoor staircase—probably even from the balcony—down to the garden, so you can get down quickly when you want to grill or the little one wants to play (although a playground will be built just opposite our house). Playgrounds are great but usually an outing. Most of the time, daily tasks in the house and garden need to be combined with the children.
JayneCobb schrieb:
And independently of that, I’d prefer to build more horizontally anyway, rather than having to run up and down stairs for every little thing. With everyday garden use, you’ll theoretically have to use this garden staircase 20 to 30 times a day. You’re cutting away a part of your quality of life with the stairs, which is often the reason for building a house with a garden.
JayneCobb schrieb:
An older couple we met, who were thinking about building again because the husband could no longer manage their previous house after a stroke, was quite tough to hear. If this can be eased with some foresight, why not. It’s not negative to build new or reorganize your living space. It’s always a new opportunity. Nowadays, the idea of “a house for life” is no longer the main focus—our generation has options.
If you find this discouraging, then you probably shouldn’t build on a slope, because you already have barriers there that will be difficult to manage in old age.
Just a little food for thought 🙂
House on a slope?
An ideal condition for a wooden basement!
We have one and are very happy with it. It makes our home builder quite unique, but he is always willing to support others.
We are, however, convinced wooden house residents and wanted a wooden house from the start. Originally, we planned a “normal” basement, meaning concrete or solid masonry, but after we couldn’t find a basement contractor who could give us firm commitments, our home builder suggested building a wooden basement instead. That was his third basement of this kind, and we decided to try it. In fact, it wasn’t really a risk in itself, just somewhat unusual.
By now, he is supporting a university in Zurich on a project building a multi-family house with a wooden basement. The Swiss are very open and interested in this, while here in Germany the concrete lobby is going crazy (it’s quite amusing to observe—they clearly see it as serious competition, otherwise they wouldn’t react like that).
Apart from the fact that we love wooden houses, when I read your first post, Wood1 would definitely have been my choice based on their approach and commitment.
If you are interested in a wooden basement, since the basement is living space for you, please get in touch. I am convinced that if Wood1 contacts our home builder, Wood1 will be supported on the wooden basement project. He is so convinced of it that he is always happy when more people join the trend.
Just google “Staudenschreiner” and take a look at the various projects. By now, I believe he is building his 5th wooden basement. Photos of all projects are available, and you will also find reports about wooden basements there.
An ideal condition for a wooden basement!
We have one and are very happy with it. It makes our home builder quite unique, but he is always willing to support others.
We are, however, convinced wooden house residents and wanted a wooden house from the start. Originally, we planned a “normal” basement, meaning concrete or solid masonry, but after we couldn’t find a basement contractor who could give us firm commitments, our home builder suggested building a wooden basement instead. That was his third basement of this kind, and we decided to try it. In fact, it wasn’t really a risk in itself, just somewhat unusual.
By now, he is supporting a university in Zurich on a project building a multi-family house with a wooden basement. The Swiss are very open and interested in this, while here in Germany the concrete lobby is going crazy (it’s quite amusing to observe—they clearly see it as serious competition, otherwise they wouldn’t react like that).
Apart from the fact that we love wooden houses, when I read your first post, Wood1 would definitely have been my choice based on their approach and commitment.
If you are interested in a wooden basement, since the basement is living space for you, please get in touch. I am convinced that if Wood1 contacts our home builder, Wood1 will be supported on the wooden basement project. He is so convinced of it that he is always happy when more people join the trend.
Just google “Staudenschreiner” and take a look at the various projects. By now, I believe he is building his 5th wooden basement. Photos of all projects are available, and you will also find reports about wooden basements there.
JayneCobb schrieb:
And if there already needs to be something underneath, Massiv 2 suggested, similar to an existing house, to add a basement and make that space accessible both from outside and inside. We thought it was a clever idea to make good use of the space and free up room in the house. It’s surprising how uncommon this is. That’s not uncommon at all. In our very hilly area, it’s often done on the valley side.
JayneCobb schrieb:
Interesting! I would have thought younger homeowners don’t really think about these things, while people like us in middle age keep an eye on potential physical limitations. 😉
Of course, there are other options, and I don’t have to stay in this house at all costs for the rest of my life, but if some flexibility can be planned in advance without much extra effort or cost, I think that makes sense. And independently of that, I’d generally prefer to build more horizontally rather than having to climb stairs for every little thing. 😀 I would have thought the same, but several young colleagues in their late 20s are currently building and they’re thinking a lot about this, and one is even already planning for a grab bar beside the toilet 😱 no joke!
Building wider sounds good, especially if in the end three bedrooms end up in the basement.
We debated a lot about having the living area in the basement with garden access. Unfortunately, you only get the nice view from the ground floor and upper floor where we are...
I imagine we’ll use the balcony (also with stairs down) mainly in spring and autumn or for a glass of red wine in the evening, and the terrace below in the summer when the sun is intense and for barbecues.
And yes, that means carrying things up and down.
In return, the living area gets natural light and a view for longer throughout the year.
JayneCobb schrieb:
Regarding the companies: Holz 2 constructs using timber frame construction, Holz 1 refers to timber framing (which I initially wrote incorrectly in the first post). But these are the same, right? It is common to build walls as full-story panels with timber frames. It is also common, although inaccurately since the term originally refers to house-height posts rather than storey-high framing, to call this "post" construction. If the infill between the “posts” consists not of insulation wool or foam but instead “solid” wood-based materials, this is referred to as “solid timber construction.” I prefer this term because “massive timber construction” is often mistakenly associated with log cabin building. However, there are also solid timber builders who construct their wall panels as full-surface solid wood sheathing comparable to plywood, without “posts.”
JayneCobb schrieb:
Massiv 1 says they insulate on the inside; Massiv 2 on the outside. Interior insulation for masonry houses is generally only done in renovations, so I suspect Massiv 1 refers to filled blocks (insulating materials in the cavities of porous bricks) that are then “monolithically” mortared, while the competitor applies insulation boards to thinner walls on the outside (known as external thermal insulation composite systems, or ETICS, due to the direct application without an air gap).
JayneCobb schrieb:
So in our case, with Holz 1 it would be that the garden/basement level is partly made of concrete (where there is lateral earth contact) and then further construction could proceed using timber or solid wood. I do not favor this kind of hybrid construction (masonry in the ground-contact area, but timber construction in exposed above-ground areas) except for creating a separation gap. There is no better way to cause settlement cracks. ;-)
JayneCobb schrieb:
– better view from the living area into the greenery / the mini-valley I described than from the basement We have numerous existing threads on this topic (mostly dating from 2018, and I currently don’t have time for a detailed summary) and specifically a discussion around dividing living spaces into an upper viewing lounge and a lower garden-access living room, including a cellar garage, in this thread: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/erster-entwurf-grundriss-efh-ca-200qm-bitte-um-feedback.18830/
JayneCobb schrieb:
Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Timber and prefabricated home builders usually build on stone or concrete cellars, for which they do not have their own manufacturing expertise. This means they either leave the procurement entirely to the client (“quote starting at top edge of cellar ceiling”) or subcontract the cellar work to a specialist cellar builder. In the first case, they make no profit on it; in the second, the added value of converting the cellar into living space would be a “pass-through” cost for them. However, the provider prefers to keep the better-paid living space construction work for themselves and leaves the cellar supplier only with what is absolutely necessary. I cannot imagine scenarios where the above-ground builder also earned commission on the living cellar development via the below-ground builder, in addition to the living space they create themselves. Therefore, timber or prefabricated home providers tend to discourage building a living cellar.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
J
JayneCobb23 Nov 2020 16:58Thanks again for your great contributions!
I will respond in more detail later; I have just uploaded the initial floor plan draft from Holz 1.
We look forward to your comments, thank you! 🙂
I will respond in more detail later; I have just uploaded the initial floor plan draft from Holz 1.
We look forward to your comments, thank you! 🙂
J
JayneCobb25 Nov 2020 01:25exto1791 schrieb:
Without reading all the other comments in detail – here is my opinion/experience, since we will be signing next week after 9 months of searching/planning 😀
[...]
We actually found someone who has met almost all these requirements so far 🙂 So we feel confident about signing the construction contract.Thanks for your great list! You definitely encouraged us not to drop the others too quickly. Although I get the impression with all general contractors that once they present a first floor plan and a ballpark price offer, they expect you to commit. It sounds quite different with you, where companies were willing to invest more time upfront and free of charge for potential clients. I’m glad to hear you found the right fit. 🙂Climbee schrieb:
House on a slope?
Ideal conditions for a wooden basement!
We have one and are very happy with it. It makes our home builder quite unique but he is always willing to support others.
We are convinced wooden house residents and wanted a timber house from the start.Thanks for the suggestion, I’ve never heard of that and at the moment it sounds challenging to me. But I’ll happily check out the website. What makes you committed wooden house owners and how long have you been living in your home?
Elokine schrieb:
That’s not uncommon at all. In our very hilly area you often find this on the valley side.I was also a bit surprised that this wouldn’t be well known...Elokine schrieb:
😀 I would have thought the same, but here several young colleagues in their late 20s are currently building and they put a lot more thought into it, and one is even already planning a grab bar next to the toilet 😱 no joke!Haha! 🤨 😳 Building outwards sounds good, especially if in the end 3 bedrooms move into the basement.
Elokine schrieb:
We debated a lot about having the living level in the basement with garden access. Unfortunately, the nice view is only from the ground floor and upper floor at our place...
I imagine we will use the balcony (with stairs down) mostly in spring and autumn or for a glass of red wine in the evening, and the terrace downstairs in summer when the sun is strong and for barbecues.
And yes, then you just have to carry stuff downstairs.
But in the living area, you get more natural light and a view throughout the year.Thanks, I thought we might be the only ones who see these advantages. I fully understand the argument for living on the garden level and we will definitely give it more thought, but I also see the benefits of having it upstairs. Well, we’ll see what we end up deciding.
So, does that mean you’re not living there yet and can’t share practical experience?
11ant schrieb:
Internal insulation is usually only done in stone houses during refurbishment, so I assume he means filled bricks (insulation material inside chambers of aerated clay blocks) that are laid “monolithically,” whereas the competitor uses thinner walls clad externally with insulation boards (called ETICS—External Thermal Insulation Composite System—because the insulation is applied directly without an air gap).Thanks again for sharing your knowledge, both concerning timber frame construction and here about solid masonry. Is monolithic masonry with filled bricks qualitatively different from ETICS?
11ant schrieb:
I don’t see any advantage in a mixed construction method like this (stone construction for earth-contact areas, timber frame only in exposed above-ground areas). That’s a guaranteed way to cause settling cracks ;-)Yes, I was quite surprised and asked about it three times. I was always told it’s not a problem. As one photo shows, it is currently being done that way there.
Wood 1 has been in business for a long time—if it didn’t work, some issues would have appeared by now, right?
We will definitely ask for a detailed explanation of why it is supposedly not a problem.
How would a typical garden-level/basement floor usually be built—concrete and masonry?
Thanks for the link to the thread about floors, sounds very relevant to us and we will read it carefully!
11ant schrieb:
Therefore, a timber or “prefab” house supplier tends to discourage a basement for living.Another thing learned. That’s definitely not the case with Wood 1. First, they have no problem continuing construction on a basement started in concrete, and second, they initially talked about living in the garden-/basement level. That was quite the opposite of discouragement. 😉
Similar topics