Hello everyone,
We are currently planning the construction of a single-family house, without a basement, approximately 180sqm (1937 sq ft) of living space, 1.5 stories, with an exterior wall area of about 270 sqm (2906 sq ft).
The architect has designed the exterior walls using 36cm (14 inches) Poroton blocks with a plaster facade (white). Now we would prefer a clinker brick appearance and are facing the following decision:
Option 1: Handmade clinker bricks; additional cost of 100€ per sqm; however, this would mean not using Poroton 36 blocks anymore but instead using Euromac2 wall elements. The calculation was based on Wienerberger clinker bricks at a price of 40€ per sqm. The different wall construction is stated to be cost-neutral.
Option 2: We keep the wall construction with 36cm (14 inches) Poroton blocks and apply a clinker brick slip (thin brick veneer) to the facade.
For this, the architect has 1. not yet provided a price estimate and 2. advised against it for quality reasons.
I am interested in the following points:
1. Is the price parity between the Poroton 36 and Euromac2 wall constructions realistic?
2. Approximately what additional cost compared to plaster (or conversely what cost saving compared to the stated handmade clinker brick option) should I expect?
3. Pros and cons of both options.
Thanks in advance.
We are currently planning the construction of a single-family house, without a basement, approximately 180sqm (1937 sq ft) of living space, 1.5 stories, with an exterior wall area of about 270 sqm (2906 sq ft).
The architect has designed the exterior walls using 36cm (14 inches) Poroton blocks with a plaster facade (white). Now we would prefer a clinker brick appearance and are facing the following decision:
Option 1: Handmade clinker bricks; additional cost of 100€ per sqm; however, this would mean not using Poroton 36 blocks anymore but instead using Euromac2 wall elements. The calculation was based on Wienerberger clinker bricks at a price of 40€ per sqm. The different wall construction is stated to be cost-neutral.
Option 2: We keep the wall construction with 36cm (14 inches) Poroton blocks and apply a clinker brick slip (thin brick veneer) to the facade.
For this, the architect has 1. not yet provided a price estimate and 2. advised against it for quality reasons.
I am interested in the following points:
1. Is the price parity between the Poroton 36 and Euromac2 wall constructions realistic?
2. Approximately what additional cost compared to plaster (or conversely what cost saving compared to the stated handmade clinker brick option) should I expect?
3. Pros and cons of both options.
Thanks in advance.
No, I’m saying "if it’s done normally, it looks bad."
As mentioned, I wouldn’t do it, but there are people who do.
And as always, "you get what you pay for"... It doesn’t cost significantly less for no reason. If the quality were the same, brick facades wouldn’t exist.
The architect himself advised against it, although his estimate of the extra cost for brickwork is completely unrealistic—as someone pointed out from personal experience three posts ago.
As mentioned, I wouldn’t do it, but there are people who do.
And as always, "you get what you pay for"... It doesn’t cost significantly less for no reason. If the quality were the same, brick facades wouldn’t exist.
The architect himself advised against it, although his estimate of the extra cost for brickwork is completely unrealistic—as someone pointed out from personal experience three posts ago.
Kekse schrieb:
I could also post photos of bad brick façades… Specifically regarding corners: with solid prefabricated houses (using wall panels made of aerated clay blocks or similar), it is quite common for the cladding to be applied at the factory—each panel individually, meaning the house corners are not "interlocked." In terms of quality, I see little difference here compared to thin brick veneers without corner pieces (which even most DIY builders rarely use anymore).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Regarding the costs again: I find the additional charge for the hand-formed clinker bricks reasonable. If you factor in the savings from not having to apply plaster, the effective cost comes to about 140€/per sqm (140€/per sq ft). These figures align with what I have found on various construction websites online.
The very moderate surcharge mentioned a few lines earlier seems unusually low to me.
However, I’m open to being corrected, which is why I’m asking.
The very moderate surcharge mentioned a few lines earlier seems unusually low to me.
However, I’m open to being corrected, which is why I’m asking.
The problem here is comparing apples (with sugar glaze) to pears (with cream) – such a comparison cannot be transparent.
The wall planned so far is "complete" in the sense that no additional wall layer is needed. Therefore, the supplier understandably suggests not to add a full masonry layer there—which would basically be "too much"—but instead, as an alternative to the brick veneer layer, to use a solid brick layer on the complete wall, thus creating a multi-layer wall.
I question this measure both in its intention and especially its extent, since the clients explicitly only desire the visual effect, which the sliced brick facing fully and qualitatively achieves. So initially, concerning the partial question of whether the effort for a solid brick layer is necessary or even somewhat superior: the answer is clearly "no," neither technically nor qualitatively required.
The second aspect of the question is whether one should follow the proposal for the alternative wall construction. Here, unusually, not the same construction material in a thinner thickness for the then only "interior" wall layer is proposed, but rather a system change to a construction wall layer of the type "insulating foam block."
However, this is a profound change with, in my view, three disadvantages:
1. It is disproportionately complex for fulfilling the wish, without making it worthwhile;
2. It requires personnel for both wall layers with completely different application experience (and, I expect, it is also not neutral in terms of static calculations, meaning they would have to be performed differently);
3. It makes it almost impossible for a layperson client to reasonably assess the comparison on their own.
Especially point 3 would be the decisive reason for me to reject it, regardless of how cost-neutral the switch might be.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
The wall planned so far is "complete" in the sense that no additional wall layer is needed. Therefore, the supplier understandably suggests not to add a full masonry layer there—which would basically be "too much"—but instead, as an alternative to the brick veneer layer, to use a solid brick layer on the complete wall, thus creating a multi-layer wall.
I question this measure both in its intention and especially its extent, since the clients explicitly only desire the visual effect, which the sliced brick facing fully and qualitatively achieves. So initially, concerning the partial question of whether the effort for a solid brick layer is necessary or even somewhat superior: the answer is clearly "no," neither technically nor qualitatively required.
The second aspect of the question is whether one should follow the proposal for the alternative wall construction. Here, unusually, not the same construction material in a thinner thickness for the then only "interior" wall layer is proposed, but rather a system change to a construction wall layer of the type "insulating foam block."
However, this is a profound change with, in my view, three disadvantages:
1. It is disproportionately complex for fulfilling the wish, without making it worthwhile;
2. It requires personnel for both wall layers with completely different application experience (and, I expect, it is also not neutral in terms of static calculations, meaning they would have to be performed differently);
3. It makes it almost impossible for a layperson client to reasonably assess the comparison on their own.
Especially point 3 would be the decisive reason for me to reject it, regardless of how cost-neutral the switch might be.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Kekse schrieb:
And I argue that you simply don’t recognize normally or well-made facing brick facades as such. Because you can’t tell.In Schleswig-Holstein, you see many examples of both. “Real” clinker bricks at 11.5cm (4.5 inches) thick or houses later fitted with facing bricks. The latter really exist across the spectrum—from completely amateurishly executed to technically decent but visually inconsistent, all the way to well-made and visually coherent. BUT: you can tell. Window reveals, window lintels, roof eaves/rafter supports, base views, etc. It doesn’t have to be bad, but a facing brick facade is simply constructed differently than a veneer wall on its own foundation.
Waeller schrieb:
The very moderate additional cost mentioned a few lines earlier seems unusually low to me.That probably depends on the building region of Hesse. In the north, 17.5cm (7 inches) calcium silicate blocks with cavity insulation plus 11.5cm (4.5 inches) masonry veneer is basically the building standard. There are general contractors who list facing bricks at the same price as plastered finishes (though I don’t know if there’s a difference in wall construction).
I would avoid the stuff with the EPS panels. Then you basically end up with EPS on the inside of all or at least all exterior walls.
Similar topics