ᐅ Masonry – Construction Method for a Custom-Designed Single-Family Home
Created on: 1 Mar 2025 14:36
S
Sonar87
Dear community,
I am new here and would like to gather your expert opinions and experiences on a specific topic. We are planning to build a custom-designed single-family house in the Bauhaus style and are currently deciding between two general contractors using different construction methods:
One general contractor claims that an exterior wall with only 17.5 cm (7 inches) aerated concrete is structurally questionable—especially for a two-story building with two reinforced concrete floors. A building expert we consulted disagrees with this and explains that the structural design is perfectly sound if calculated correctly.
Now my question to the experts and experienced homeowners in this forum:
Has anyone had experience with either of these construction methods? How do you assess the general contractor’s argument regarding load-bearing capacity and long-term stability? What aspects would you consider most important when making this decision?
I look forward to your opinions and feedback!
Best regards
I am new here and would like to gather your expert opinions and experiences on a specific topic. We are planning to build a custom-designed single-family house in the Bauhaus style and are currently deciding between two general contractors using different construction methods:
- Option 1: Load-bearing masonry wall made of 17.5 cm (7 inches) aerated concrete, supplemented with mineral fiber insulation, a ventilation gap, and a facing brick veneer.
- Option 2: Monolithic construction with 36.5 cm (14 inches) aerated concrete PPW2, also with a brick facade.
One general contractor claims that an exterior wall with only 17.5 cm (7 inches) aerated concrete is structurally questionable—especially for a two-story building with two reinforced concrete floors. A building expert we consulted disagrees with this and explains that the structural design is perfectly sound if calculated correctly.
Now my question to the experts and experienced homeowners in this forum:
Has anyone had experience with either of these construction methods? How do you assess the general contractor’s argument regarding load-bearing capacity and long-term stability? What aspects would you consider most important when making this decision?
I look forward to your opinions and feedback!
Best regards
Sonar87 schrieb:
After extensive work with Excel and many months of careful analysis, we identified numerous differences. That makes me curious: differences in what?
@ YPG: Solar system, larger garage, concrete instead of a wooden ceiling. To name just a few. But as I said, in the end everything has to be right. The building structure should be solid. As far as I can tell here, you believe that the wall construction is not structurally problematic. However, as is often the case in forums, there are simply different opinions on every topic.
M
MachsSelbst2 Mar 2025 11:36Structural engineering is not a matter of opinion; it consists of calculations that are either correct or incorrect. Generally, it is assumed that the structural engineer will perform these calculations accurately, especially for something relatively simple like a single-family home. In that case, everything should be fine.
The wall construction, however, is a matter of personal preference. I find it hard to understand how building monolithically with aerated concrete could be more expensive than using calcium silicate blocks / clay bricks combined with insulation, since the working steps are essentially doubled. Whether I work with 17.5cm (7 inches) clay bricks or 36.5cm (14 inches) aerated concrete... in the end, it’s primarily a question of weight, nothing else.
The wall construction, however, is a matter of personal preference. I find it hard to understand how building monolithically with aerated concrete could be more expensive than using calcium silicate blocks / clay bricks combined with insulation, since the working steps are essentially doubled. Whether I work with 17.5cm (7 inches) clay bricks or 36.5cm (14 inches) aerated concrete... in the end, it’s primarily a question of weight, nothing else.
Sonar87 schrieb:
Solar system, larger garage, concrete instead of wooden ceiling. Just to name a few. But as I said, in the end everything has to be right. The building structure itself must be solid. You can read in "Plan change: From concrete ceiling to wooden ceiling" and in "Lightweight walls in solid houses?" why it is by no means about getting less value when you are offered a construction that is considered cheaper by common perception.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
I can’t quite understand how building with aerated concrete can be more expensive monolithically than using sand-lime brick / Poroton plus insulation, since the number of work steps roughly doubles. Whether I use 17.5cm (7 inches) Poroton bricklayers or 36.5cm (14 inches) aerated concrete... In the end, it’s just a question of weight, nothing else. You’re forgetting the power of volume discounts, nothing else. A general construction laborer playing cards on site doesn’t cost less than a bricklayer, even for facing brickwork. Already with medium-sized general contractors and construction companies, utilization and standardized processes count more than anything else. Single-family homes are peanuts in that context, they should not cause any disruptions either. Some things simply have a fixed, take-it-or-leave-it price. But basically, you’re right, I would at most expect price parity here; cheaper is pushing it. But I can actually get a 2025 Jimny 5-door cheaper than a 3-door (though I still prefer the shorter one).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics