ᐅ Affordable Building Without Compromising Quality, Architect-Designed Home
Created on: 2 Jan 2024 12:33
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hello everyone!
I have been quietly following this forum for some time, and our house-building project (single-family home) will probably start in Q1/Q2.
I am wondering how to build a house in 2024 cost-effectively without compromising quality.
We have a budget of about 500,000-600,000 euros for the entire construction (excluding the land).
That is a lot of money, but not unlimited – I want to get the best out of it.
A brief overview of our project:
~120m2 (two floors), steep slope, no basement (not possible), 2 adults (maybe one child max in the future), undeveloped plot.
I assume that land development, slope work, and foundation slab will cost around 100,000 euros.
That leaves around 400,000 euros for a move-in ready house.
We have already looked at prefab house providers, but none of their offers matched what we wanted – customizing prefab houses is about as expensive as working directly with an architect.
The plan is to have the house built "ready for finishing" (shell and core) and carry out most of the interior work ourselves (walls, floors, tiles, bathrooms—only the tiling!—and outdoor terraces). We have sufficient craftsmanship skills for this!
Where is the best place to save costs?
What features are often installed without real benefit? (e.g., laundry chute, central vacuum system, automatic blinds, etc.)
Where should you definitely not save?
Should an independent expert inspect the work? Or is that a waste of money for a general contractor/architect-led build?
Should the construction contract be reviewed by a lawyer?
My current thoughts are:
* Simple building shape (rectangle), straightforward pitched roof construction
* No unnecessary home technology (ventilation system, smart home, etc.)
* Minimize large window areas
* Only a carport, no double garage
* The building method (timber frame, solid wood construction like Holz100, masonry) is still open – I prefer timber frame/solid wood.
* Good planning once is cheaper than planning two or three times
* Double checking is cheaper than fixing poorly done work afterwards
* A wood stove is nice, but a fireplace is also expensive.
Where else can you save? What unnecessarily drives construction costs up?
Our idea is:
If we skip things like a double garage, we have more budget for high-quality interior finishes.
We prefer to invest in interior finishing rather than, for example, a laundry chute, central vacuum system, automatic blinds, and so on.
I understand that features like a laundry chute can be subjective when it comes to being "unnecessary" or not.
The goal is to figure out what is essential for a house build, where one should definitely not save, and which elements can be omitted.
There are also significant price ranges for stairs, windows, doors, facades, and roof coverings.
Does it have to be an expensive branded roof? Will a cheaper option suffice?
With this "pre-planning," I also want to minimize the cost of architectural planning. If we come to the architect with a realistic, well-thought-out plan, it probably saves a few thousand euros... Also, an independent building surveyor can save money by detecting issues early on – once the progress payment is made, it is hard to get the money back.
Thanks in advance for your tips and opinions.
I have been quietly following this forum for some time, and our house-building project (single-family home) will probably start in Q1/Q2.
I am wondering how to build a house in 2024 cost-effectively without compromising quality.
We have a budget of about 500,000-600,000 euros for the entire construction (excluding the land).
That is a lot of money, but not unlimited – I want to get the best out of it.
A brief overview of our project:
~120m2 (two floors), steep slope, no basement (not possible), 2 adults (maybe one child max in the future), undeveloped plot.
I assume that land development, slope work, and foundation slab will cost around 100,000 euros.
That leaves around 400,000 euros for a move-in ready house.
We have already looked at prefab house providers, but none of their offers matched what we wanted – customizing prefab houses is about as expensive as working directly with an architect.
The plan is to have the house built "ready for finishing" (shell and core) and carry out most of the interior work ourselves (walls, floors, tiles, bathrooms—only the tiling!—and outdoor terraces). We have sufficient craftsmanship skills for this!
Where is the best place to save costs?
What features are often installed without real benefit? (e.g., laundry chute, central vacuum system, automatic blinds, etc.)
Where should you definitely not save?
Should an independent expert inspect the work? Or is that a waste of money for a general contractor/architect-led build?
Should the construction contract be reviewed by a lawyer?
My current thoughts are:
* Simple building shape (rectangle), straightforward pitched roof construction
* No unnecessary home technology (ventilation system, smart home, etc.)
* Minimize large window areas
* Only a carport, no double garage
* The building method (timber frame, solid wood construction like Holz100, masonry) is still open – I prefer timber frame/solid wood.
* Good planning once is cheaper than planning two or three times
* Double checking is cheaper than fixing poorly done work afterwards
* A wood stove is nice, but a fireplace is also expensive.
Where else can you save? What unnecessarily drives construction costs up?
Our idea is:
If we skip things like a double garage, we have more budget for high-quality interior finishes.
We prefer to invest in interior finishing rather than, for example, a laundry chute, central vacuum system, automatic blinds, and so on.
I understand that features like a laundry chute can be subjective when it comes to being "unnecessary" or not.
The goal is to figure out what is essential for a house build, where one should definitely not save, and which elements can be omitted.
There are also significant price ranges for stairs, windows, doors, facades, and roof coverings.
Does it have to be an expensive branded roof? Will a cheaper option suffice?
With this "pre-planning," I also want to minimize the cost of architectural planning. If we come to the architect with a realistic, well-thought-out plan, it probably saves a few thousand euros... Also, an independent building surveyor can save money by detecting issues early on – once the progress payment is made, it is hard to get the money back.
Thanks in advance for your tips and opinions.
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII2 Jan 2024 13:4511ant schrieb:
Please read more carefully – my request
you seem to have overlooked, but it unfortunately plays a key role in the discussion. A basement is not possible because, according to the geological survey, there is rock at about 1 meter (3 feet) depth.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
A basement is not possible because, according to the geological survey, there is bedrock already at about 1 meter (3 feet) depth.How will it then be ensured that the house is built level? Also, explain how the development plan envisions the two-story design, since a steep slope inevitably results in a full ground-level basement (unless it’s just stilts, of course). Don’t let them make you extract the basics bit by bit!https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII2 Jan 2024 14:0711ant schrieb:
How will it be ensured that the house ends up perfectly level?
Also, explain how the development plan envisions a two-story building, since a steep slope inevitably results in a full basement level (unless it’s just stilts, of course). Don’t let them give you the basics in bits and pieces! I don’t understand why this question is essential.
There are already several houses built on the slope there, and similar hillside constructions exist elsewhere.
I want a simple house with a ground floor and one upper floor. No basement.
The report recommends digging down to the bedrock and building the foundation there.
If the rock is too “steep,” it suggests, for example, pouring concrete ring beams to create a level surface. Whether this makes sense, I cannot judge.
My concern is not about optimizing construction costs because of the slope—that will cost what it costs. I am referring to the usual costs associated with building a house.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
I want a simple house with one ground floor and one upper floor. No basement.For that, you will need a simple plot of land as well.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
I want a simple house with a ground floor and one upper floor. No basement. Your request cannot be fulfilled on a site with a steep slope like the one you described.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
I don’t understand why this question is essential?
There are already several houses on the slope [...] The report says it’s best to dig down to the rock and build the foundation there. If the rock is too “steep,” it is recommended to, for example, cast concrete rings (such as well rings) to create a level surface. I can’t judge if that makes sense. With too little background information about your property, we also can’t assess it. However, you want a house built as economically as possible.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
It’s not about optimizing the building costs due to the slope; it will cost what it costs. I’m interested in the normal building costs that everyone has. It has been clear throughout this thread that your concern is not the cost block from “plot to top of foundation.” But that means it’s not your house on the line—we just don’t get your point. We can’t help you this way. Please read the follow-up questions and simply answer them—even if you don’t yet see their purpose. All these questions come from experienced planning helpers who only ask relevant questions.
Take some photos of the site, including aerial shots if possible, and provide the details of the zoning plan (without any links). Nobody in your discussion can shed light on this except you.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
O
Oberhäslich2 Jan 2024 14:54If it’s a steep slope, one side will be completely closed off anyway, right? In the worst case, even 50% of the ground floor area at the lower side might not be usable as regular living space (no windows). You could still use that space for rooms like a utility room, guest toilet, or storage, but it will never be the same as a ground floor on level ground. I’m sure you’re aware of that. That’s why many people prefer to have a basement and two full floors above it. Another option is having only a half “basement” at the front as the ground floor, with the roof featuring knee walls to create full-height living space. What is the situation like with the houses nearby?
Similar topics