ᐅ Realistic Cost Estimate: Single-Family Home with Challenging Site Access
Created on: 20 Jan 2023 10:50
S
schmeissrein
Hello everyone,
I have been following this forum for a while and first of all, a big thank you to everyone who shares their advice here and sometimes also speaks hard truths. I didn’t originally want to create a new thread but intended to form an opinion based on other discussions. However, you convinced me that this building project is too individual for that. So here is our plan:
- Building a new single-family house in the far north of Germany (Schleswig-Flensburg region).
- Plot size is over 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft).
- Total square meters are not so important as long as the layout works.
- Basement is not planned.
What we would like:
- Open-plan kitchen-living area of at least 36m² (388 sq ft).
- Guest room (at least 10m² / 108 sq ft) and small guest bathroom with shower on the ground floor, so that in old age, with disability, or a broken leg, the ground floor can be used independently and possibly serve as a bedroom.
- Utility room / storage room / pantry with heat pump of at least 8m² (86 sq ft) (KfW 40 standard would be great, of course).
- Upper floor with three rooms (1 office, 1 master bedroom, 1 child’s room) each at least 14m² (151 sq ft) and one bathroom. Our dream would be a “walk-in” (what a silly word – aren’t all showers walk-in?) shower to avoid having to clean those limescale-rusty, annoying shower enclosures.
- We could contribute labor for garden landscaping and painting/wallpapering; otherwise, we would prefer a turnkey build.
As for the house style, regionally typical Frisian houses or captain’s houses (with all the “cute” features like small gables, etc.) are in consideration, or also not completely unimaginative “normal” single-family houses. We are not afraid of Bauhaus-style concrete marvels either, but those tend to be more expensive. In terms of fittings, no “gold-plated faucets” and no smart home – but decent and presentable.
The big BUT: the plot is not connected to utilities, and the distance to the street is about 65m (213 ft), of which 50m (164 ft) is a paved driveway and paved parking area that would have to be dug up (across another property). The connection costs and incidental construction costs worry us quite a bit. Does anyone have experience with such a “mammoth connection” for a relatively small building project? What realistic costs should we expect for both?
We would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this project, thank you very much in advance!
I have been following this forum for a while and first of all, a big thank you to everyone who shares their advice here and sometimes also speaks hard truths. I didn’t originally want to create a new thread but intended to form an opinion based on other discussions. However, you convinced me that this building project is too individual for that. So here is our plan:
- Building a new single-family house in the far north of Germany (Schleswig-Flensburg region).
- Plot size is over 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft).
- Total square meters are not so important as long as the layout works.
- Basement is not planned.
What we would like:
- Open-plan kitchen-living area of at least 36m² (388 sq ft).
- Guest room (at least 10m² / 108 sq ft) and small guest bathroom with shower on the ground floor, so that in old age, with disability, or a broken leg, the ground floor can be used independently and possibly serve as a bedroom.
- Utility room / storage room / pantry with heat pump of at least 8m² (86 sq ft) (KfW 40 standard would be great, of course).
- Upper floor with three rooms (1 office, 1 master bedroom, 1 child’s room) each at least 14m² (151 sq ft) and one bathroom. Our dream would be a “walk-in” (what a silly word – aren’t all showers walk-in?) shower to avoid having to clean those limescale-rusty, annoying shower enclosures.
- We could contribute labor for garden landscaping and painting/wallpapering; otherwise, we would prefer a turnkey build.
As for the house style, regionally typical Frisian houses or captain’s houses (with all the “cute” features like small gables, etc.) are in consideration, or also not completely unimaginative “normal” single-family houses. We are not afraid of Bauhaus-style concrete marvels either, but those tend to be more expensive. In terms of fittings, no “gold-plated faucets” and no smart home – but decent and presentable.
The big BUT: the plot is not connected to utilities, and the distance to the street is about 65m (213 ft), of which 50m (164 ft) is a paved driveway and paved parking area that would have to be dug up (across another property). The connection costs and incidental construction costs worry us quite a bit. Does anyone have experience with such a “mammoth connection” for a relatively small building project? What realistic costs should we expect for both?
We would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this project, thank you very much in advance!
schmeissrein schrieb:
Several reasons: you can share the connection costs, and the garden will be shared anyway because of the existing house in the front row (with the same people). You have less lawn to mow and less garden to maintain if you build more 😀 now you just have to arrange the two houses sensibly on the property or design one with an appropriate floor plan. The others need about 100m² (1,076 sq ft), preferably all on one level; we want between 140 and 160m² (1,507 and 1,722 sq ft). That’s not what I mean. We’ve been discussing your potential single-family home for 10 pages here schmeissrein schrieb:
Building a new single-family house schmeissrein schrieb:
We would really appreciate any thoughts on the project, thanks in advance! … and now you come up with the idea of building two houses (or a multi-family house) or sharing the building plot. And in this post, you even write that some people already want to build a bungalow, you want 140–160m² (1,507–1,722 sq ft) instead of 130m² (1,399 sq ft) all of a sudden… If you still want to divide your plot, you should first consider what you actually want and b) what is even possible. Because after all, it is precisely the absence of a zoning plan that restricts the building footprint. And if it turns out that a single house is just too expensive for you and you want to compensate by selling part of the land, that is of course allowed, but this mental step should also be clearly communicated.K
karl.jonas31 Jan 2023 23:27ypg schrieb:
then you should first think about what you actually want and b) what is actually possible@ypg aren’t you being a bit too strict? For me, it’s more like constantly considering different alternatives, also thanks to the suggestions here. If the dream house gets too expensive, okay, then redesign. And I’m happy to share ideas here, listen to comments, discard some, or incorporate others. Isn’t that a nice part of this forum?
Having a very restrictive zoning plan limits you, which can be good or bad. Without a zoning plan, you start dreaming freely and eventually talk to the architect and/or the building authority. Then you go through another round of planning.
Our architect said that the planning (of the shell structure) doesn’t really end until the shell is finished. Before that, you still walk through the house and decide to move one wall or another. Of course, this is not mandatory (and doesn’t make it cheaper), but in the end, I might want to live in this place for several decades.
It’s certainly great when you share with the community what decisions you made and what the outcome was—sometimes even one or two years later.
My building permit application has been with the building authority for almost a year, but yesterday I noticed (because of the property tax) that house numbers have already been assigned.
ypg schrieb:
And if the situation is that you simply realize that a house is too expensive for you and you want to compensate by selling part of the land, that is of course allowed, but this thought process should also be communicated. It seems to me (see site plan in post #44) that the original idea was to locate a building plot in the compost corner of a distant relative’s property (which is a separate parcel). This probably explains the mindset of extending the access infrastructure accordingly – although I suspect that access from another side would be easier. The mental leap now appears to be: "why not just move in together under one new roof with Uncle Hinnerk and Aunt Trude?" – which is why I referred to @karl.jonas (this, in my opinion, can be done well) and Claudia-Marlen ("disruptive factor little brother").
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
schmeissrein1 Feb 2023 09:13Hello everyone,
It’s exactly as @karl.jonas says: building a house is one of the biggest projects in life, and you shouldn’t get stuck on "we thought about it differently at the beginning." The plot is 1800m² (19375 sq ft), with 3m (10 ft) set back from all sides and leaving the existing greenery undisturbed, resulting in an area of 980m² (10545 sq ft). I think that’s enough space for two houses or one large one.
@ypg
The two of them own the entire group of parcels and they need a long-term solution suitable for aging. They had originally planned to build there themselves, and we simply thought it might make sense to do everything “in one go” since the site would already be disturbed 😀 Nothing will be divided or sold; only the owners of the front property would move into a new house at the back. Regarding any sale, it’s more about the long-term perspective. If we want to move to Australia in 20 years, we might find it easier to sell two separate houses than one large one (the parcels could be subdivided again later if needed). The larger area comes from the (valid) suggestions here to plan for more space for the utility room and children’s bedrooms—I’m writing here now because I’m open to implementing such proposals 🙂
It’s exactly as @karl.jonas says: building a house is one of the biggest projects in life, and you shouldn’t get stuck on "we thought about it differently at the beginning." The plot is 1800m² (19375 sq ft), with 3m (10 ft) set back from all sides and leaving the existing greenery undisturbed, resulting in an area of 980m² (10545 sq ft). I think that’s enough space for two houses or one large one.
@ypg
The two of them own the entire group of parcels and they need a long-term solution suitable for aging. They had originally planned to build there themselves, and we simply thought it might make sense to do everything “in one go” since the site would already be disturbed 😀 Nothing will be divided or sold; only the owners of the front property would move into a new house at the back. Regarding any sale, it’s more about the long-term perspective. If we want to move to Australia in 20 years, we might find it easier to sell two separate houses than one large one (the parcels could be subdivided again later if needed). The larger area comes from the (valid) suggestions here to plan for more space for the utility room and children’s bedrooms—I’m writing here now because I’m open to implementing such proposals 🙂
schmeissrein1 Feb 2023 10:3511ant schrieb:
It seems to me (see site plan in post #44) that the original idea was to place a building envelope in the compost corner of a deeply nested relative’s property (which is a separate land parcel). This likely explains the thinking behind extending the site access – although I suspect that connecting from another side would be easier. The mental leap seems to be: “why not just move in together under one new roof with Uncle Hinnerk and Aunt Trude?” – which is why I mentioned @karl.jonas (I think that could work well) and Claudia-Marlen (“little brother as a disruptive factor”). Calling it a compost corner is a bit of an understatement given the 1800m² (19375 sq ft) size 😀 The extension of the access comes from the following circumstances: One side of the property borders three-story apartment buildings with a homeowners’ association of more than 24 members, whose bylaws do not allow majority decisions but only approve what EVERY SINGLE OWNER supports. It’s unlikely that among more than 24 parties no one objects. The other side borders a property whose owner cannot yet foresee what exactly will be developed there and therefore will not “just allow” connections to be made. On the remaining (own) land parcels, there are no suitable connection points.
“No one under 40 nowadays builds only once, but this popular belief is so widespread and deeply rooted that current homebuilders still effectively hold themselves back because of it. Even the concept of a “lifetime home, plus for the heirs” is an unnecessarily complex project. When additional generations are involved, the complexity becomes cumbersome, and the whole thing becomes almost too difficult even for an engineer. The proverbial all-in-one solution only exists in Wolperting when there is a new moon on St. Never’s Day – and even Halley’s Comet appears more often than that.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
schmeissrein schrieb:Nice oversimplification. The setback only becomes relevant when placing the building, not before. It doesn’t directly affect the floor area ratio, which would have to be 0.54 for 980 from 1800 m² (19,375 sq ft) — in rural areas, about half that is the usual figure.
The plot is 1800 m² (19,375 sq ft) in size, set back 3 m (10 ft) from all sides, and leaving the existing greenery untouched results in an available area of 980 m² (10,548 sq ft).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics