Hello,
we currently have some questions about the topic of “shell houses” (partially finished houses). Since we don’t want to be overwhelmed by suppliers just yet, it’s been difficult to find information.
Our dream has always been to build a bungalow that isn’t too large, as it would be too big once the children have moved out. Now we’ve come across these shell houses. Do I understand correctly that the bungalow itself (the ground floor) is “complete,” and you can expand upstairs as needed?
At the moment, it’s two adults plus a toddler, and a second child is planned.
In terms of the floor plan, I have already found something suitable:
95 sq m (1023 sq ft) + 40 sq m (431 sq ft) expansion, or
103 sq m (1109 sq ft) + 40 sq m (431 sq ft) expansion.
Does anyone have experience with this? I know these are vague details, but what should one roughly expect in terms of costs or work involved?
Many thanks and best regards!
we currently have some questions about the topic of “shell houses” (partially finished houses). Since we don’t want to be overwhelmed by suppliers just yet, it’s been difficult to find information.
Our dream has always been to build a bungalow that isn’t too large, as it would be too big once the children have moved out. Now we’ve come across these shell houses. Do I understand correctly that the bungalow itself (the ground floor) is “complete,” and you can expand upstairs as needed?
At the moment, it’s two adults plus a toddler, and a second child is planned.
In terms of the floor plan, I have already found something suitable:
95 sq m (1023 sq ft) + 40 sq m (431 sq ft) expansion, or
103 sq m (1109 sq ft) + 40 sq m (431 sq ft) expansion.
Does anyone have experience with this? I know these are vague details, but what should one roughly expect in terms of costs or work involved?
Many thanks and best regards!
B
Bauexperte5 Nov 2012 14:41Hello
No, that’s a misconception.
Since all rooms must be built on a single level, the building footprint inevitably needs to be larger; this means the land itself will also cost more. On this single floor, all the technical installations have to be accommodated; the building systems are among the most expensive parts of house construction. And finally, you end up with a considerably larger foundation slab, wall, and roof area. The only realistic saving is one staircase run; the “rest” is simply spread out on the ground floor instead.
If you want to build a bungalow – as my previous poster mentioned – with an attic floor (which to me is no longer a bungalow but a single-family house with no knee walls), you can only save money by using a truss roof structure – but this limits future expansion because only a small central area remains usable for storage.
Kind regards
EarlGrey schrieb:
Why is building a bungalow significantly more expensive? @Bauexperte
Sure, you need a larger footprint for a bungalow, but apart from that, I thought that a simple bungalow design should actually be cheaper price-wise. Only one floor, no staircase... that should save quite a bit... I would appreciate some clarification
No, that’s a misconception.
Since all rooms must be built on a single level, the building footprint inevitably needs to be larger; this means the land itself will also cost more. On this single floor, all the technical installations have to be accommodated; the building systems are among the most expensive parts of house construction. And finally, you end up with a considerably larger foundation slab, wall, and roof area. The only realistic saving is one staircase run; the “rest” is simply spread out on the ground floor instead.
If you want to build a bungalow – as my previous poster mentioned – with an attic floor (which to me is no longer a bungalow but a single-family house with no knee walls), you can only save money by using a truss roof structure – but this limits future expansion because only a small central area remains usable for storage.
Kind regards
Similar topics