ᐅ Construction costs for terraces and similar elements in cost estimates according to DIN 276
Created on: 16 Oct 2018 15:51
P
Pyrate
First of all, hello to everyone in this great forum!
We are also future homeowners and currently have some questions about construction costs during the conceptual planning phase.
The plan is for a Bauhaus-style house with about 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) over two floors. We now have initial designs including a cost estimate based on DIN 276.
We have generally liked the idea of having roof overhangs on the south side with covered terraces on the ground floor and balconies on the upper floor underneath. One of the concepts includes exactly this, while the other does not.
However, with the concept that includes covered outdoor areas, the costs according to the DIN 276 estimate skyrocket. The architect explained that the covered terraces and balconies are fully included in the cost estimate, specifically in the parameters of usable floor area (UFA), gross volume (GV), and gross floor area (GFA).
This means that the concept with 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) of “indoor” space without any overhangs, terraces, or balconies is cheaper than the concept with 180 sqm (1,940 sq ft) of indoor space plus 40 sqm (430 sq ft) of covered balcony/terrace area. The UFA of the first building is 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft), while the second is 220 sqm (2,370 sq ft). Multiplied by the same construction cost index (CCI) values, the second building is more expensive even though it offers less indoor space.
My question is this: Is it really true that the cost estimate does not distinguish between fully enclosed living space and a terrace covered by a projecting roof? The latter should be significantly cheaper to build than true living space, right? Even if it is structurally connected to the main building as a cantilevered roof extension...
I would greatly appreciate your advice here.
We are also future homeowners and currently have some questions about construction costs during the conceptual planning phase.
The plan is for a Bauhaus-style house with about 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) over two floors. We now have initial designs including a cost estimate based on DIN 276.
We have generally liked the idea of having roof overhangs on the south side with covered terraces on the ground floor and balconies on the upper floor underneath. One of the concepts includes exactly this, while the other does not.
However, with the concept that includes covered outdoor areas, the costs according to the DIN 276 estimate skyrocket. The architect explained that the covered terraces and balconies are fully included in the cost estimate, specifically in the parameters of usable floor area (UFA), gross volume (GV), and gross floor area (GFA).
This means that the concept with 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) of “indoor” space without any overhangs, terraces, or balconies is cheaper than the concept with 180 sqm (1,940 sq ft) of indoor space plus 40 sqm (430 sq ft) of covered balcony/terrace area. The UFA of the first building is 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft), while the second is 220 sqm (2,370 sq ft). Multiplied by the same construction cost index (CCI) values, the second building is more expensive even though it offers less indoor space.
My question is this: Is it really true that the cost estimate does not distinguish between fully enclosed living space and a terrace covered by a projecting roof? The latter should be significantly cheaper to build than true living space, right? Even if it is structurally connected to the main building as a cantilevered roof extension...
I would greatly appreciate your advice here.
Pyrate schrieb:
It remains hard to accept that from a cost perspective, it makes no difference whether I convert the terrace into regular living space or notNo offense intended, but you’re somewhat refusing to understand this. I know it’s frustrating, but you asked for advice and have repeatedly been asked to provide a sketch (which you can do with just paper and pencil) and some numbers.
Right now, it’s completely guesswork.
And that’s exactly the kind of well-founded answers you’re getting.
On top of that, it seems you’re having trouble grasping the building structure. Because your statement above is simply not correct. You’re comparing a 40 sqm (430 sq ft) covered terrace to 20 sqm (215 sq ft) of living space. That’s not a 1:1 comparison. Not to mention the additional requirements for static load and structural considerations.
As I said, no offense meant, but if you just refuse to accept that your wish won’t come true, then you can end the discussion here. If you want to approach this objectively... provide more information. Then you will get, firstly, more understandable explanations why it’s so expensive, whether the ratio is reasonable, and even better, maybe tips on how it could be done more affordably while still achieving at least part of your vision.
Give it a try.
M
Mottenhausen18 Oct 2018 11:26Most people start building their house with a dream castle in mind, but in reality, it often ends up as a small box.
I can only repeat myself: your cost estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Bet on it! Our builder, within his one-year price guarantee for the planning and construction phase, now expects a cost increase of 10% for the individual trades, because the current situation in construction costs is simply crazy.
Take your plans and put them in front of a builder, asking for a quote to get back down to reality. I suspect that any ideas about a terrace will disappear on their own. It sounds harsh, but unfortunately, that’s the current market situation.
I can only repeat myself: your cost estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Bet on it! Our builder, within his one-year price guarantee for the planning and construction phase, now expects a cost increase of 10% for the individual trades, because the current situation in construction costs is simply crazy.
Take your plans and put them in front of a builder, asking for a quote to get back down to reality. I suspect that any ideas about a terrace will disappear on their own. It sounds harsh, but unfortunately, that’s the current market situation.
Similar topics