ᐅ Cost savings or how much credit is given when reducing the floor plan size

HalloClarissa schrieb:

Has anyone ever reduced the house dimensions of a standard house from the usual providers?
How much credit did you receive per square meter?
Since I don’t really like any of the standard floor plans anyway, we would have to pay for additional planning services, that’s clear. However, we would need to shorten most of the offered houses by 1–2 meters, so reduce the size by about 8 to 16 sqm (86 to 172 sq ft).

I would advise against that, because typical standard floor plans usually don’t have much potential for “trimming.” A more effective approach is to take a smaller model and extend it along the ridge axis. I explained this in more detail in “Changing a floor plan’s size,” see also: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/baukosten-je-qm-fix-und-variabel.42971/page-3#post-565673 (and we already discussed this topic here as well: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/ab-wann-zum-hausplaner-angebote-vergleichen.41784/page-2#post-538786).

WilderSuiden schrieb:

Mr. @11ant, this is your effort to present the floor plan reduction cost-saving rule for the first time [...]

Not for the first time, since I already stated it on Wednesday:

11ant schrieb:

Additional square meters are added at the selling price, while fewer square meters are deducted only at the purchase price.

(11ant scale price mantra, full quote here: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissbewertung-quadratmeter-einsparen-efh.42945/page-5#post-565330)

Andre77 schrieb:

Shortening the building by 0.5 m (1.6 ft) along the ridge direction brought a credit of about €3500.

Unfortunately, this only works if the original design included some margin for adjustments — a rare example of such “tightening” potential was shown here last Sunday by @Zubi123: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissbewertung-quadratmeter-einsparen-efh.42945/page-2

Zubi123 schrieb:

If you already like the floor plan that much, I would just reduce 0.50 m (1.6 ft) in length and 0.25 m (10 inches) in depth.
My blue lines each correspond to a -0.25 m (10 inches) reduction.

With that, the question is almost answered as the original poster wanted it (though it probably hasn’t been actually implemented and priced that way yet, at least this example proves it is possible).

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Here are two comparisons.

Fingerhaus urban villa 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) reduced by 20 m² (215 sq ft): 9,800 euros credit
Town & Country urban villa Flair 152 reduced by 20 m² (215 sq ft): 3,400 euros credit

DennisW schrieb:

Here are two comparisons.
Fingerhaus urban villa, 150m² (1,615 sq ft) reduced by 20m² (215 sq ft): 9,800 Euro credit
Town & Country urban villa Flair 152, reduced by 20m² (215 sq ft): 3,400 Euro credit

At least the balance from "reduced building volume minus additional costs for the entire area due to structural recalculations and drawing changes" is positive in both cases. However, the price per square meter of the remaining 130/132m² (1,399/1,420 sq ft) (starting from 2,500 Euro) has increased to 2,809 (= +12.37%) and 2,853 (= +14.12%) respectively. I assume that with the same cost structure, a reduction of 10m² (108 sq ft) might even result in a "negative savings balance" aka an additional cost.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

ypg schrieb:

In our case, we simply removed the planned covered terrace as a recess, gaining 2 sqm (22 sq ft) of additional living space. This didn’t cost anything since the walls remained unchanged. The underfloor heating loops and screed were unaffected… floor coverings are the builder’s responsibility anyway…

We did the same. For us, it was even a bit more, and the change cost us "zero" extra.
Our advantage is that we now have a slightly larger living area. 😎

SoL schrieb:

Yes, that was exactly your question EXCLAMATION MARK!!!
First, calm down a bit...

Reducing the size of a house is straightforward; however, adjusting a standard floor plan so that it still functions properly is not.

As @WilderSueden already mentioned, @11ant is probably the most competent person to answer, so we are tagging him here.

If you want reasonably accurate estimates, you need to tell us more about the construction project: How large, how many floors, what is the total planned budget, etc.

For a 100 sqm (1,076 sq ft) house, the cost savings on 16 sqm (172 sq ft) will be different than for a 1,000 sqm (10,764 sq ft) house.

We want to build a small, age-appropriate bungalow. Since the site is on a slope, we cannot avoid having a basement. The basement will house the guest room and technical equipment. Therefore, we only need about 70 sqm (753 sq ft) on the ground floor.

We would reduce a Danhaus bungalow, for example, by around 7 sqm (75 sq ft), and an EBK bungalow by about 20 sqm (215 sq ft).

HalloClarissa schrieb:

We want to build a small, age-appropriate bungalow. Since the site is on a slope, we can’t avoid having a basement. The basement will include the guest room and technical areas. So we only need 70 sqm (750 sq ft) on the ground floor.

(Whatever “age-appropriate” means here…)
I would always recommend having something like this designed individually. Especially on a slope, access points from the property and garden usually determine the layout, which a standalone bungalow doesn’t usually take into account. The basement can also be designed individually, since there would also be a nice garden access there.