Hello everyone,
I have read a lot in this forum and now I’m making my first post. I’m looking forward to your opinions.
We are almost finished with all our planning, but now we have to decide whether to go with the smaller house or the slightly larger one. The "small" house is a townhouse with 133 sqm (1,433 sq ft). The larger version has the same floor plan but is 13 sqm (140 sq ft) bigger, totaling 146 sqm (1,571 sq ft). The additional cost for the 13 sqm (140 sq ft) is 30,000€.
We’re unsure whether to settle for the smaller house or opt for the larger one. Currently, there are two of us, but we plan to have two children in the future. Some rooms are even less than half a square meter smaller, so we’re wondering if the extra 30,000€ is really justified or necessary for the 13 sqm (140 sq ft) difference.
What are your thoughts?
Thank you in advance.
I have read a lot in this forum and now I’m making my first post. I’m looking forward to your opinions.
We are almost finished with all our planning, but now we have to decide whether to go with the smaller house or the slightly larger one. The "small" house is a townhouse with 133 sqm (1,433 sq ft). The larger version has the same floor plan but is 13 sqm (140 sq ft) bigger, totaling 146 sqm (1,571 sq ft). The additional cost for the 13 sqm (140 sq ft) is 30,000€.
We’re unsure whether to settle for the smaller house or opt for the larger one. Currently, there are two of us, but we plan to have two children in the future. Some rooms are even less than half a square meter smaller, so we’re wondering if the extra 30,000€ is really justified or necessary for the 13 sqm (140 sq ft) difference.
What are your thoughts?
Thank you in advance.
Stoxxler schrieb:
The "small" house is an urban villa with 133 sqm (1,434 sq ft). The larger version has the same floor plan, etc., but is just 13 sqm (140 sq ft) bigger with 146 sqm (1,571 sq ft). [...]
Some rooms are not even half a square meter smaller, so we are wondering whether the additional cost of €30,000 for 13 sqm (140 sq ft) is really justified/necessary. That is nonsense or a wrong point of view: it is not an additional cost, but a price difference. It would be an additional cost if the 146 sqm (1,571 sq ft) model did not resemble any version of the 133 sqm (1,434 sq ft) model (just as a Golf is its own model and not simply a Polo made X centimeters bigger in every dimension). Instead, the 133 sqm (1,434 sq ft) model would be extended by 13 sqm (140 sq ft) along the ridge axis. The crucial point is whether, after
Stoxxler schrieb:
We are almost finished with all our planning you find that the 133 sqm (1,434 sq ft) model has any issues or feels cramped anywhere (if not, then just check that off and close the matter).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
If I understand the original post correctly, this is about some type of modular or prefab house that comes in two sizes with the exact same floor plan (this is quite common with major prefab companies). If this assumption is correct, the $30K difference is really excessive: we had a similar situation where the builder offered $14K (and even that was well above the costs based on the actual measurements).
From what I see, there is a significant margin in the $30K. How much you can negotiate down really depends on you. I would consider how much the additional 13 square meters (140 square feet) are worth to me and present this politely, constructively, and openly to the provider. If they value the partnership, they might be willing to move quite a bit. Good luck!
From what I see, there is a significant margin in the $30K. How much you can negotiate down really depends on you. I would consider how much the additional 13 square meters (140 square feet) are worth to me and present this politely, constructively, and openly to the provider. If they value the partnership, they might be willing to move quite a bit. Good luck!
I’m glad we found a local general contractor who isn’t part of the prefab house rip-off scheme.
30,000 for just a few extra square meters? That’s not realistic; it’s complete exploitation.
We increased from 150 to 160 square meters (ultimately, the house was extended by about half a meter on each side).
The additional cost was exactly €11,000.
30,000 for just a few extra square meters? That’s not realistic; it’s complete exploitation.
We increased from 150 to 160 square meters (ultimately, the house was extended by about half a meter on each side).
The additional cost was exactly €11,000.
Hangman schrieb:
If I understand the original post correctly, this is about some kind of model or prefab house that comes in two sizes with the exact same floor plan (this is often the case with major prefab house companies). If that assumption is correct, the $30K is really excessive: we had a similar situation and the builder offered $14K (and that was already significantly above the calculated costs based on quantities).
From what I see, there is quite a bit of margin in the $30K. How much you can negotiate down is something only you can judge. I would consider what those 13 sqm (140 sq ft) are worth to me and politely, constructively, and openly discuss that with the provider. If they are cooperative, they can usually move considerably. Good luck! No, this is actually a solid masonry house built with bricks or blocks.
The story behind it is that originally the house was offered at 146 sqm (1570 sq ft), but at the time it was too expensive for us, so we asked if savings could be made in certain areas. That led to the smaller house option. Over time and through various discussions, some changes were added again, basically a mix of both houses. In the end, the exterior appearance and floor plans are identical except for the 13 sqm (140 sq ft) size difference.
The €30,000 refers to the total house price (larger foundation slab, bricks, paint, floor coverings, etc.).
exto1791 schrieb:
We increased from 150 to 160 sqm (roughly adding half a meter on each side of the house) and that was it.
It cost exactly €11,000 more. If you mean half a meter more on one side along the eaves and on the other (more complex) gable side, then that’s quite affordable.
Stoxxler schrieb:
The background is that the house was originally offered at 146 sqm, but at that time it was too expensive for us, so we asked if savings could be made in certain areas. That’s how the smaller house came about. So only the 146 size was an original catalog model, and the 133 version was created as a cost-saving variant which, “naturally,” isn’t noticeably smaller in all areas (?) — in that case, I would recommend the “larger” (or rather, un-reduced) “original” because it has more proven detailed connections.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics