ᐅ Bungalow – Two floors with a large footprint / three floors with a smaller footprint?
Created on: 1 Mar 2016 12:42
D
DarkwarriorD
Darkwarrior1 Mar 2016 12:42Hello everyone,
I wanted to ask in the forum if anyone has experience in a situation similar to mine or if you have any ideas or suggestions.
We are currently facing the following situation: We live in a single-family house (bungalow style) and want to build an extension for our parents on the neighboring plot (which we already own and is designated as building land). To keep a consistent overall appearance for the entire property, only the bungalow style really makes sense here – a pitched roof would look odd since the large building would then have two different roof types.
Our house is located on a hillside, so it has only one ground floor and a basement. On the street and hillside side, the basement is underground (no windows – cellar rooms), while on the other side, there are normal living spaces in the basement.
The extension is supposed to be built parallel to this, and we are currently in a very early planning stage, meaning we are brainstorming what could theoretically be done, so we can later check the feasibility.
Here is what we are thinking so far:
We could give the extension a floor plan of 10 x 13 meters (33 x 43 feet) which would result in about 130m² (1,399 sq ft) of living space on the ground floor regardless of wall thickness. The basement would include several cellar rooms and also living space on the hillside side – altogether, the total living area would be around 180m² to 190m² (1,938 to 2,045 sq ft).
This floor plan is quite large, so I assume that a flat roof of this size would be very expensive, and the basement would also be quite big. Therefore, I considered the following alternative:
Build with a smaller footprint, for example 10 x 8 meters (33 x 26 feet), but add an upper floor on top. Then, the ground floor and first floor combined would offer about 160m² (1,722 sq ft) of living space (again, simplified without walls), and the basement would be about 40m² (430 sq ft) – so all in all, you would roughly still end up just under 200m² (2,153 sq ft). However, the basement would be smaller and the flat roof area much smaller as well (80m² (861 sq ft) roof instead of 130m² (1,399 sq ft)).
Of course, we will discuss all our ideas with an architect in the coming months, but I’m already interested in a rough idea of the cost implications. While this adds a small upper floor, I believe there may be significant savings in the basement and roof.
With this in mind, my question: What are your thoughts on this? I would greatly appreciate sharing experiences!
PS: Construction costs are hard to estimate, but currently, we are planning roughly 275,000 (just for the build, not including land) based on 1,400 to 1,500 euros per square meter (about $1,580 to $1,700 per sq yd) for standard, non-luxury finishes. We might also do some small tasks ourselves as self-work. I would also welcome comments if anyone thinks this estimate is completely off base.
I wanted to ask in the forum if anyone has experience in a situation similar to mine or if you have any ideas or suggestions.
We are currently facing the following situation: We live in a single-family house (bungalow style) and want to build an extension for our parents on the neighboring plot (which we already own and is designated as building land). To keep a consistent overall appearance for the entire property, only the bungalow style really makes sense here – a pitched roof would look odd since the large building would then have two different roof types.
Our house is located on a hillside, so it has only one ground floor and a basement. On the street and hillside side, the basement is underground (no windows – cellar rooms), while on the other side, there are normal living spaces in the basement.
The extension is supposed to be built parallel to this, and we are currently in a very early planning stage, meaning we are brainstorming what could theoretically be done, so we can later check the feasibility.
Here is what we are thinking so far:
We could give the extension a floor plan of 10 x 13 meters (33 x 43 feet) which would result in about 130m² (1,399 sq ft) of living space on the ground floor regardless of wall thickness. The basement would include several cellar rooms and also living space on the hillside side – altogether, the total living area would be around 180m² to 190m² (1,938 to 2,045 sq ft).
This floor plan is quite large, so I assume that a flat roof of this size would be very expensive, and the basement would also be quite big. Therefore, I considered the following alternative:
Build with a smaller footprint, for example 10 x 8 meters (33 x 26 feet), but add an upper floor on top. Then, the ground floor and first floor combined would offer about 160m² (1,722 sq ft) of living space (again, simplified without walls), and the basement would be about 40m² (430 sq ft) – so all in all, you would roughly still end up just under 200m² (2,153 sq ft). However, the basement would be smaller and the flat roof area much smaller as well (80m² (861 sq ft) roof instead of 130m² (1,399 sq ft)).
Of course, we will discuss all our ideas with an architect in the coming months, but I’m already interested in a rough idea of the cost implications. While this adds a small upper floor, I believe there may be significant savings in the basement and roof.
With this in mind, my question: What are your thoughts on this? I would greatly appreciate sharing experiences!
PS: Construction costs are hard to estimate, but currently, we are planning roughly 275,000 (just for the build, not including land) based on 1,400 to 1,500 euros per square meter (about $1,580 to $1,700 per sq yd) for standard, non-luxury finishes. We might also do some small tasks ourselves as self-work. I would also welcome comments if anyone thinks this estimate is completely off base.
B
Bieber08151 Mar 2016 13:09Darkwarrior schrieb:
We live in a single-family house (bungalow style) and want to [...] build an extension. So far so good, but the rest of the text makes me think that you do not want an extension but rather a detached single-family house with a flat roof. Your question is whether A) two floors, or
B) three floors
are more reasonable (considering construction costs and the resulting basement area), with the first floor being partially (about half) below ground level, i.e., a basement.
Darkwarrior schrieb:
What are your thoughts on this? In my opinion, your question is related to whether a bungalow with the same living area is cheaper than a two-story house. Short answer: it doesn’t really matter and depends on many other factors. This has been widely discussed online.
I would first clarify what I (in this case: your parents) want: which rooms, how much spaciousness, and how much basement space? If that fits well on one level (plus a basement), I would build that way.
D
Darkwarrior1 Mar 2016 13:15Thank you very much! So, it will actually be an extension, with both buildings connected by a shared hallway. However, the extension will have its own heating system and will be independently “self-sufficient.”
We don’t really need much basement space – the main reason for having everything on one floor is that we want to design the building to be age- and care-friendly from the start. Stairlifts will be installed regardless, but the more that is on one floor, the easier it naturally is.
We don’t really need much basement space – the main reason for having everything on one floor is that we want to design the building to be age- and care-friendly from the start. Stairlifts will be installed regardless, but the more that is on one floor, the easier it naturally is.
Why should the houses be combined instead of designed as separate semi-detached houses? With separate semi-detached houses, it’s much easier to sell or rent out one house if the parents are no longer around.
Also, you can close the door without the "young ones" constantly dropping in on the "older ones" or vice versa. The first thing I did when we converted the apartment in my mother-in-law’s house was to install a proper door with a knob on the outside.
In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense for two people to build 180–190m² (1900–2045 sq ft) of living space and then have to watch the budget closely.
Also, you can close the door without the "young ones" constantly dropping in on the "older ones" or vice versa. The first thing I did when we converted the apartment in my mother-in-law’s house was to install a proper door with a knob on the outside.
In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense for two people to build 180–190m² (1900–2045 sq ft) of living space and then have to watch the budget closely.
8 by 10 meters (26 by 33 feet) with 2 floors (basement + ground floor) should be more than enough for 2 people, right?
As mentioned above: What rooms/areas are needed? A larger extension with one additional floor would look quite odd. Better to go for a larger footprint instead.
As mentioned above: What rooms/areas are needed? A larger extension with one additional floor would look quite odd. Better to go for a larger footprint instead.
D
Darkwarrior1 Mar 2016 14:03@Wastl: That is indeed the point where I am stuck, because a "built-on tower" with three floors looks a bit odd. This strongly supports the two-story model.
@Musketier: If one day our parents are no longer here, there is no intention to sell or rent the extension. We are located at the edge of a forest with only one neighboring house. We want to maintain this freedom, and in that distant future, we do not want to have neighbors that would enclose our property in a single plot. Instead, the building should be flexible enough to be used by our entire family (e.g., as an apartment for the children, office space, etc.). Therefore, the entire building should be usable either as one large unit or as two semi-detached houses.
The usage issue will arise in about 40 to 50 years, when we no longer live here and our children will likely want to sell the property.
@Musketier: If one day our parents are no longer here, there is no intention to sell or rent the extension. We are located at the edge of a forest with only one neighboring house. We want to maintain this freedom, and in that distant future, we do not want to have neighbors that would enclose our property in a single plot. Instead, the building should be flexible enough to be used by our entire family (e.g., as an apartment for the children, office space, etc.). Therefore, the entire building should be usable either as one large unit or as two semi-detached houses.
The usage issue will arise in about 40 to 50 years, when we no longer live here and our children will likely want to sell the property.
Similar topics