Hi, you have a lot of questions.
I am, among other things, co-owner of a house that has a solid brick ground floor, with a wooden house (from Finland) built on top. Built in 1978.
It is cozy but requires a lot of maintenance.
Certainly, a lot has changed in recent years. I consider a wooden house very charming—beautiful, warm, cozy. A great thing.
Now I also have a "wooden house," but only a timber frame construction. Wood as a building material impresses me overall with its excellent properties. Of course, there are pros and cons, but in my opinion, the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
Manufacturers of pure wooden houses—I am not deeply familiar with them—will hardly have any problems building a house to the KfW 55 standard.
Construction costs will not differ significantly from other building methods; please refer to other posts here in the forum for price per square meter and additional construction costs. Bauexperte has contributed a lot here with great expertise, detail, and accuracy.
Owner-builder work is often vastly overestimated. I have fallen into this trap myself.
You might paint a few walls or do small tasks. Save where you can without exhausting yourself, your nerves, or your family. Building a house is an extraordinary experience—you shouldn’t let sheer stress ruin it just to save, say, 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD). Especially since as an amateur, you will need much more time to do the work properly and with high quality. Owner-builder work only makes sense for those skilled in crafts who also have skilled family and friends to help. Otherwise, I don’t recommend it.
In my experience, it makes more sense to save on fittings and many other things without making the house sparse. Using intelligence, research, and thoroughness, you can quickly save 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD) without it being noticeable. The great thing is that it doesn’t wear you out physically or mentally.
Do you have a partner who is building the other half of the semi-detached house? Without that, it doesn’t make much sense. Then you might as well build a detached house. Especially with your requirements for outdoor and garden areas, a good plot of land (according to the development plan) of about 300–350 m² (3,200–3,800 sq ft) is sufficient. Yes, that is somewhat larger than what you would need for a semi-detached house, but you would avoid the stress of sharing it. I would advise you to build detached, even if prices are high in your area. Semi-detached houses make sense mainly in system-built construction, otherwise less so.
Happy Easter.
Best regards
Thorsten
I am, among other things, co-owner of a house that has a solid brick ground floor, with a wooden house (from Finland) built on top. Built in 1978.
It is cozy but requires a lot of maintenance.
Certainly, a lot has changed in recent years. I consider a wooden house very charming—beautiful, warm, cozy. A great thing.
Now I also have a "wooden house," but only a timber frame construction. Wood as a building material impresses me overall with its excellent properties. Of course, there are pros and cons, but in my opinion, the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
Manufacturers of pure wooden houses—I am not deeply familiar with them—will hardly have any problems building a house to the KfW 55 standard.
Construction costs will not differ significantly from other building methods; please refer to other posts here in the forum for price per square meter and additional construction costs. Bauexperte has contributed a lot here with great expertise, detail, and accuracy.
Owner-builder work is often vastly overestimated. I have fallen into this trap myself.
You might paint a few walls or do small tasks. Save where you can without exhausting yourself, your nerves, or your family. Building a house is an extraordinary experience—you shouldn’t let sheer stress ruin it just to save, say, 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD). Especially since as an amateur, you will need much more time to do the work properly and with high quality. Owner-builder work only makes sense for those skilled in crafts who also have skilled family and friends to help. Otherwise, I don’t recommend it.
In my experience, it makes more sense to save on fittings and many other things without making the house sparse. Using intelligence, research, and thoroughness, you can quickly save 15,000–20,000 euros (about 16,000–21,000 USD) without it being noticeable. The great thing is that it doesn’t wear you out physically or mentally.
Do you have a partner who is building the other half of the semi-detached house? Without that, it doesn’t make much sense. Then you might as well build a detached house. Especially with your requirements for outdoor and garden areas, a good plot of land (according to the development plan) of about 300–350 m² (3,200–3,800 sq ft) is sufficient. Yes, that is somewhat larger than what you would need for a semi-detached house, but you would avoid the stress of sharing it. I would advise you to build detached, even if prices are high in your area. Semi-detached houses make sense mainly in system-built construction, otherwise less so.
Happy Easter.
Best regards
Thorsten
The post also reveals an expectation that might not have been explicitly promised. It’s true, Rörvik, Eksjö, and others sell the Swedish dream. But anyone buying this should be aware that Sweden does not comply with our energy-saving regulations or our KfW loans. The Swedish way of living and building is simpler. For example, PVC gutters and pine wood windows that open outward are common. However, this does not mean it is cheap, as Sweden is a high-wage country—wages are actually higher than ours. And building a house is labor-intensive. Who exactly promises the customer that their house will pass a blower door test? Either I’m overlooking something, or none of the Swedish providers guarantee this. Karsten
R
Renchtalsteig5 Feb 2018 15:16That is actually correct. On Rörvikshus’s website, there is a section about KfW loans. This, of course, falsely suggests a related quality standard. In fact, according to the contract, Rörvikshus is only obligated to provide a building shell without any quality specifications. During the blower door test, the windows and doors were so leaky that the airflows were even audible.
Similar topics