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.
Oberhäslich schrieb:
You could fit rooms like a utility room, guest bathroom, or storage room, but the ground floor will never be the same as on flat land. However, I’m sure you’re aware of that. Whether @Vierzehnmalrömischeins understands this is still questionable. Even just a guest bathroom and utility room require a lifting station if the connection is coming from the uphill side. Unfortunately, we’re completely in the dark here because the original poster doesn’t grasp the importance of the follow-up questions. Are we perhaps dealing with BiffBiff’s neighbor downhill from Niagara Falls in the end?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII2 Jan 2024 16:0111ant schrieb:
Whether @Vierzehnmalrömischeins understands this is still questionable. Even a guest toilet and utility room require a lifting station if the supply comes from the uphill side. Unfortunately, we are completely in the dark here because the OP does not understand the relevance of the follow-up questions. Could this be the Niagara Falls downstream neighbor of BiffBiff after all? I’ll try to shed some light on the situation.
1. We are planning with a budget of €100,000 (about $110,000) for the foundation and connections; if it ends up costing €150,000 (about $165,000), that is still manageable.
2. We want to spend around €400,000 (about $440,000) for a "move-in ready" house starting from the slab/foundation/pilings/etc.
3. I want to use this €400,000 as cost-efficiently as possible.
4. The extra costs due to the hillside location are what they are.
I am fully aware that part of the ground floor will be embedded in the hillside with this type of construction.
The side embedded in the hill will be the north side; views to the east, south, and west are not blocked, so sufficient light comes from those sides.
On the north side, we plan to place the staircase, maybe a guest toilet and a pantry, but since nothing has been concretely planned yet, this is completely flexible.
The sewer connection is to the southeast, so no lifting station is required there because it slopes downhill anyway.
How to build cost-efficiently on a hillside (i.e., basement/foundation/hillside stabilization) is something I may open a separate thread about at the right time – my focus, as mentioned, is just on the cost-efficient construction of the house itself; the hillside location cannot be changed.
I will also send you a drawing of the hillside later... I don’t have anything at hand right now.
I found an EXAMPLE online (not my hillside, not my house) that is similar. Our hillside is similar, except it doesn’t slope as steeply towards the front; only the hillside behind the house is similar...
This house also does not have a basement in the usual sense.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask, and I will answer them.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
This house does not really have a basement in the usual sense. No one here ever intended to recommend a traditional cluttered hobby basement.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
If you have more questions, feel free to ask; I will answer them. For now, I’m mostly focused on completing the existing pending questions.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
I’ll also send you a drawing of the slope sometime... I don’t have anything on hand at the moment. Then we’ll catch up again after that.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Don’t let yourself get stressed. Here, advice is usually given only once all details are known. Even if they seem unrelated, or apparently unrelated, to the question asked.
The tone may sound a bit blunt, but many have been saved here from a disaster they hadn’t even considered. Keep at it, answer questions precisely or explain your answers, and you’ll no longer face opposition or rejection.
On the topic: Building services can easily become unnecessarily expensive and inefficient. When planning a heat pump system, avoid using buffer tanks, combined storage tanks, or any mixing valves. Only supply line out, heating circuit manifold, and return line back in. Add a 3-way valve for the hot water tank (without circulation), and you’re done.
Have the underfloor heating designed for a 30°C (86°F) supply temperature under natural conditions, and do not install individual room controllers or motorized control valves. Google search tip: Flow30 underfloor heating.
For the size of the house, consider using two decentralized residential ventilation units with heat recovery, each with a secondary connection for a side room (bathroom), instead of a central ventilation system. This is more cost-effective than a central ventilation system.
Building according to the Building Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz) does not necessarily improve things. It only gets more expensive, especially for individual projects, because the QNG certification alone can consume any available funding (if there still is any).
Oh, and external blinds / shutter systems cost roughly as much as the windows per square meter (m2). So avoid them where possible, using natural shading like roof overhangs instead.
The tone may sound a bit blunt, but many have been saved here from a disaster they hadn’t even considered. Keep at it, answer questions precisely or explain your answers, and you’ll no longer face opposition or rejection.
On the topic: Building services can easily become unnecessarily expensive and inefficient. When planning a heat pump system, avoid using buffer tanks, combined storage tanks, or any mixing valves. Only supply line out, heating circuit manifold, and return line back in. Add a 3-way valve for the hot water tank (without circulation), and you’re done.
Have the underfloor heating designed for a 30°C (86°F) supply temperature under natural conditions, and do not install individual room controllers or motorized control valves. Google search tip: Flow30 underfloor heating.
For the size of the house, consider using two decentralized residential ventilation units with heat recovery, each with a secondary connection for a side room (bathroom), instead of a central ventilation system. This is more cost-effective than a central ventilation system.
Building according to the Building Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz) does not necessarily improve things. It only gets more expensive, especially for individual projects, because the QNG certification alone can consume any available funding (if there still is any).
Oh, and external blinds / shutter systems cost roughly as much as the windows per square meter (m2). So avoid them where possible, using natural shading like roof overhangs instead.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
I don’t understand why this question is essential?Because many equipment decisions depend on the plot of land. It’s rarely possible to say in general terms: save this, save that… take, for example, the sewage lifting station that you say you don’t need. If you had a plan including contour lines and the access road, one could then discuss whether you actually need it. As it stands, it’s just back and forth questioning that can ultimately annoy you and others. In the end, there are no constructive answers. I would go further and say you need to know who will move in—age and number of occupants (children) too. Because that determines, for example, how much hallway or circulation space is needed, if at all. With the living area, meaning the floor plan, you can control a lot of costs. Or how large the hot water storage tank needs to be…
This brings us to this statement:
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Minimizing costs for the actual planning by the architect—if we show up with a realistic, well thought-out plan, it will definitely save a few thousand euros… A layperson usually does not plan optimally, often either wasteful with room sizes or in a way that results in less functional spaces. Therefore, it makes sense to leave it to the professional. They get paid anyway—whether they think for themselves or let the client think—their name goes on it.
11ant schrieb:
A steep slope inevitably leads to a full basement level (unless it’s just stilts, of course). Build one meter in, two meters out. Split levels are more expensive but also more practical.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Converting prefabricated houses to our wishes is just as expensive as working directly with an architect. No. You don’t actually convert; instead, you work with a general contractor (GC), who usually makes cost-neutral adjustments to walls and windows during planning.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Most of the interior finishes (walls, floors, tiles, bathrooms – only the tiles! – and exterior terraces) will be done by ourselves since we have sufficient craftsmanship skills! I agree with you on most of these things. Doors also belong to that list. Tiles, however, should be done by professionals. That takes a lot of time, and time spent on interior finishing can get very expensive, often running into the five-digit range.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Should an independent expert inspect the trades? Or is that a waste of money for a GC/architect house? Definitely, an independent expert should be involved.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Should the construction contract be reviewed by a lawyer? The expert also reviews the contract. The expert should therefore be hired early—before signing.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
We would rather invest in the interior finishing than in Not really. You want to do a lot yourselves, which often means it will show somewhere.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
What things are often installed without real benefit? (e.g., a laundry chute, a central vacuum system, automatic blinds, etc.) IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
…and a speis You don’t need a pantry if you have good kitchen planning (which is often free from the kitchen supplier or in a forum when building your own kitchen, for example, with Ikea). I would put it this way: practical, affordable construction should be grounded.
You don’t need the latest technology, but it also shouldn’t be outdated. You don’t have to plan for “in 25 years,” but the current standard and needs should suffice: no empty conduits, but LAN included; not 10 electrical outlets in the bedroom, but 5 and multiple sockets for PC/TV; satellite TV—you have to check your own viewing habits here; indirect lighting can also be done with a floor lamp, no recessed spots; outdoor lighting at the minimum, not every 2 meters; no open air spaces, no galleries, no expensive hidden sliding doors, but instead standard dimensions with running doors, no large-format tiles, no lift-and-slide doors, and so on.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
like a laundry chute That one’s caught your fancy 😉 I would also consider it unnecessary.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Does it have to be an expensive branded roof? Isn’t the cheaper option good enough? You can definitely use concrete tiles.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
There are massive price differences in stairs, windows, doors, facades, roof coverings. I would say almost everyone wants to build cost-effectively. For that, you don’t need to reinvent the house…
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Simple building shape (rectangle), simple gable roof construction
* No unnecessary building technology (ventilation systems, “smart home”...)
* Minimize large window areas
* Only one carport, no double garage
* The construction type (timber frame, solid wood like Holz100, brick masonry) is still open—my preference is timber frame/Holz100.
* One well-planned design is cheaper than planning two or three times
* Double-checked quality is cheaper than one sloppy build and repairs
* A Swedish wood stove is nice, but a chimney is also expensive. …
- A simple building shape is standard when it comes to cost efficiency.
- Large window areas do not become more expensive than masonry walls beyond a certain size. For us, this was about 4 square meters to be cost-neutral.
- A good planner will design the house cost-neutrally as many times as needed until it fits.
I would already start here:
IIIIIIIIIIIIII schrieb:
Briefly about our project:
~120m2 (two stories), Two stories leads to a small tower effect; at this size, it hardly contributes to efficient storage space. Sixty square meters per floor is quite modest.
Since neither the plot size nor the building envelope is even known yet (see the thread on essentials), I would still suggest a single-story plus an attic conversion with a gable roof (for example, 26–30-degree roof pitch without sand-lime bricks in the attic). The roof can later be converted when a child arrives into bedrooms, usable storage, or hobby/office space.
On the ground floor, parents’ bedroom, living area, and utility rooms. With 85–90 square meters you can manage well; the attic can then provide 40–50 square meters, expanded as required.
If you want to build cost-efficiently and save money, choose a budget-level general contractor, build to the minimum standard according to the local Building Energy Act / building regulations, and stick to their scope of work descriptions, which often correspond to a standard home. Many upgrade this standard—but if you don’t want to, then you don’t have to—and you will get a house that is livable: no foiled windows, a 200L (53-gallon) hot water tank, possibly an outdoor faucet and outdoor light at the terrace and entrance, an analog doorbell, shower tray, no rainwater shower, walls finished to Q2 quality, but underfloor heating and a two-way switch in the hallway/stairs, electrical panel, standard bathtub, and two toilets (bathroom and WC). Even the tile splashbacks and their installation will be included.
Basic sockets can be doubled easily; I would recommend having sanitary work done professionally due to warranty reasons.
ypg schrieb:
60sqm (645sq ft) per floor, that really makes you want to kneel down. 4 minutes of processing time – admittedly one minute longer than before, but still not enough for longer texts 😉
The kneeling is meant negatively. So the forced kneeling – not gratitude 😉
Similar topics