ᐅ Avoid Mistakes When Building Your Second Home: Builder or Architect?
Created on: 13 Feb 2024 11:39
R
RotesDach
Hello forum,
In 2020, we built a new single-family home. However, for various reasons, we are not completely satisfied and are considering building again. We want to take our time with this (time frame 5-10 years) to be really sure about what exactly we want to change. In the meantime, we can also save more equity and observe everyday life with the children. From our experience, daily life with 3-4 children requires a lot of flexibility in the house because the needs of all family members seem to change quickly. That is why we have set quite a long time frame.
When we started planning the house in 2019, we didn’t always make the right decisions in hindsight. With the first and later the second child, and then the lockdown, we could not view or visit everything that was installed beforehand. Also, contact with the architect from the homebuilding company was quite limited. We often simply lacked proper advice.
My question to you is: How can we avoid making the same mistakes again in the next build? We always had to make decisions very quickly and often had no solid basis to decide. We would have liked to have quick access to prices and services; this just wasn’t available. For example, if we planned an additional window or increased the living area, we received a new total price and could only guess how much the extra cost was.
We found that the homebuilding company only builds in the way they usually do, meaning when we asked for something unusual, they said it wasn’t possible. For example, we wanted a large panoramic glass window wall that could slide open barrier-free. They said this wasn’t possible for structural reasons in our house. It seemed likely that our builder simply did not have this kind of feature in their program, or the profit margin on such a request was too low for them.
What frustrates me most is the roof. It is not usable as living space. It is a low pyramid roof made of nail plate trusses. There is not enough standing height for living space, and the structure is not suitable for conversion. We never discussed the roof with the architect at the time. The catalog house our free planning was based on originally had a gable roof—exactly what we would wish for today. The architect kept talking about a "town villa" we would be building, and we eventually adopted that term. As laypeople, we understood that as a house with two full floors. However, the architect from the building company implied a pyramid roof by "town villa." The change from the original gable roof to this non-convertible pyramid roof was never communicated to us, and we realized this far too late. Sure, you could say we should have noticed, but at some point, we just wanted to finish the project. The two-year construction period with two small children was really exhausting.
For the second build, we want to do everything right or make as few mistakes as possible, so we are allowing ourselves a much longer time for advance planning. We certainly will not build with the same homebuilding company again.
BUT: Is this the typical experience with standard (prefabricated) homebuilders? If you want something special like panoramic window walls, is it better to go to an architect? They are usually paid hourly. I worry that an architect might overall be the more expensive option. If we do go with a homebuilder, should we choose one that specializes in our style? For example, Huf-Haus comes to mind, but they are also very expensive.
Maybe someone here has had similar experiences with poor communication and advice, especially during the corona period?
Is there another solution besides a homebuilding company or an architect that we haven’t thought of? We just want to be involved in every decision and not be treated like we were the first time.
If what you want is above the average in size and features, does it make more sense economically to hire an architect than to modify a catalog house so much that it only ends up being more expensive?
Thanks for reading. I know this post is long.
In 2020, we built a new single-family home. However, for various reasons, we are not completely satisfied and are considering building again. We want to take our time with this (time frame 5-10 years) to be really sure about what exactly we want to change. In the meantime, we can also save more equity and observe everyday life with the children. From our experience, daily life with 3-4 children requires a lot of flexibility in the house because the needs of all family members seem to change quickly. That is why we have set quite a long time frame.
When we started planning the house in 2019, we didn’t always make the right decisions in hindsight. With the first and later the second child, and then the lockdown, we could not view or visit everything that was installed beforehand. Also, contact with the architect from the homebuilding company was quite limited. We often simply lacked proper advice.
My question to you is: How can we avoid making the same mistakes again in the next build? We always had to make decisions very quickly and often had no solid basis to decide. We would have liked to have quick access to prices and services; this just wasn’t available. For example, if we planned an additional window or increased the living area, we received a new total price and could only guess how much the extra cost was.
We found that the homebuilding company only builds in the way they usually do, meaning when we asked for something unusual, they said it wasn’t possible. For example, we wanted a large panoramic glass window wall that could slide open barrier-free. They said this wasn’t possible for structural reasons in our house. It seemed likely that our builder simply did not have this kind of feature in their program, or the profit margin on such a request was too low for them.
What frustrates me most is the roof. It is not usable as living space. It is a low pyramid roof made of nail plate trusses. There is not enough standing height for living space, and the structure is not suitable for conversion. We never discussed the roof with the architect at the time. The catalog house our free planning was based on originally had a gable roof—exactly what we would wish for today. The architect kept talking about a "town villa" we would be building, and we eventually adopted that term. As laypeople, we understood that as a house with two full floors. However, the architect from the building company implied a pyramid roof by "town villa." The change from the original gable roof to this non-convertible pyramid roof was never communicated to us, and we realized this far too late. Sure, you could say we should have noticed, but at some point, we just wanted to finish the project. The two-year construction period with two small children was really exhausting.
For the second build, we want to do everything right or make as few mistakes as possible, so we are allowing ourselves a much longer time for advance planning. We certainly will not build with the same homebuilding company again.
BUT: Is this the typical experience with standard (prefabricated) homebuilders? If you want something special like panoramic window walls, is it better to go to an architect? They are usually paid hourly. I worry that an architect might overall be the more expensive option. If we do go with a homebuilder, should we choose one that specializes in our style? For example, Huf-Haus comes to mind, but they are also very expensive.
Maybe someone here has had similar experiences with poor communication and advice, especially during the corona period?
Is there another solution besides a homebuilding company or an architect that we haven’t thought of? We just want to be involved in every decision and not be treated like we were the first time.
If what you want is above the average in size and features, does it make more sense economically to hire an architect than to modify a catalog house so much that it only ends up being more expensive?
Thanks for reading. I know this post is long.
RotesDach schrieb:
Someone wrote in my post 4 years ago that our open living space would be too small – it’s actually 60m² (650 sq ft). Or rather, that there would be too little space within that open living space. At the same time, I’ve often read that our floor plan wastes too much space and everything could fit into much fewer square meters. Our open living space is a rectangle – not an L-shape or anything around a corner. Would that perhaps have been the better choice? Can you get more out of the square meters that way?You can get more out of square meters. You’ve proven that by consistently doing the opposite. Unused or wasted square meters cost money but provide no benefit (using the dance floor area to set up a home office in the bedroom is not considered a “benefit” here). Simply inflating a floor plan or letting it bloat doesn’t create more space or a spacious feel. That applies to any shape.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
RotesDach schrieb:
Does this mean that we should make the open-plan living area even bigger, or how can it be better designed? To answer that, it would help to know what the room actually looks like now (including furniture) and which parts annoy you the most.
For example, I can easily imagine separating the sofa/TV area and having it “somewhere” on the ground floor. Then, combine the dining and kitchen areas generously by the terrace.
RotesDach schrieb:
Someone wrote in my post 4 years ago that our open living area was too small – it is actually 60m² (645.8 sq ft).You misunderstood: the person who wrote that had read the wrong numbers and corrected their reading mistake! If you are already referring to your house here, please upload the plans. Not everyone is willing to search for your floor plan indirectly, especially since it is not even certain that it was built as shown. Regarding the size of the open living area: 60m² (645.8 sq ft) is quite spacious! However, if you allow 5.45m (17.9 ft) in width, with a deep kitchen and a wide dining table, you have to expect that the sofa area will be too short at 11m (36.1 ft) length. An L-shape is not always the solution: how the open living area is planned depends on the plot of land. And it was also recommended that you should not build the garage on the west side but on the east side, which would mean making some changes to the floor plan.Square meters are not everything. There are measurements you simply need.
A kitchen base unit is 60 cm deep (24 inches)
A kitchen island is 100 or even 120 cm deep (39 or 47 inches)
A table measuring 120 x 300 cm (47 x 118 inches) requires a space of 320 x 500 cm (126 x 197 inches)
The sofa has dimension x
The wall unit y
And there should be some distance in between
You can clearly see now where the tight spots are in your space.
By the way, with four children, I would plan the living room separately. Possibly smaller, with a large open-plan kitchen and living area.
A kitchen base unit is 60 cm deep (24 inches)
A kitchen island is 100 or even 120 cm deep (39 or 47 inches)
A table measuring 120 x 300 cm (47 x 118 inches) requires a space of 320 x 500 cm (126 x 197 inches)
The sofa has dimension x
The wall unit y
And there should be some distance in between
You can clearly see now where the tight spots are in your space.
By the way, with four children, I would plan the living room separately. Possibly smaller, with a large open-plan kitchen and living area.
W
WilderSueden16 Feb 2024 19:55And apart from that, the benefit of additional square meters is not linear. You have more space where you need it in some places, and less in others. However, the overall footprint is increased in both width and depth. In large rooms, this can quickly create unusable areas. Depending on the floor plan (which I haven’t looked at), you can also lose a lot of space to walkways or minimize them.
I can easily imagine our 49 sqm (530 sq ft) working well even for twice the family size. If I increased the depth by 1 meter (3 feet), the additional area gained would hardly translate into usable space.
I can easily imagine our 49 sqm (530 sq ft) working well even for twice the family size. If I increased the depth by 1 meter (3 feet), the additional area gained would hardly translate into usable space.
WilderSueden schrieb:
And apart from that, the benefit of additional square meters is not linear. ...yes, I believe that, for example, with an open-plan layout like this
... the open-plan area would not perform worse with 45 m² (485 sq ft) compared to 60 m² (645 sq ft). Because even here, there is room for a dining table of at least 120 x 300 cm (47 x 118 inches), possibly with a bench along the upper wall.
Similar topics