ᐅ Solid construction passive house as a bungalow

Created on: 25 Nov 2013 12:02
H
Hugh60
Hello and greetings to the community,

My girlfriend and I are considering building a house in the near future.

We already have a plot of land, so that issue is settled.

We have also decided on the type of house.

We want to avoid rising energy costs by building a passive house with solar panels on the roof.

Additionally, we definitely do not want wood as a building material but prefer traditional bricks or something similar.

In terms of design, we want something suitable for aging (i.e., accessible) and therefore a bungalow.

The dimensions for the house are already set: 15.50 meters (51 feet) wide and 11 meters (36 feet) long, which equals about 170.5 m² (1,835 sq ft).

Now to my questions:

- I have read a lot about passive houses online, and one site mentioned that it is almost impossible to build a bungalow as a passive house. Why is that?

- Are the costs for a bungalow cheaper or more expensive than for a two-story house?

- Is there a building material comparable in quality to brick?

- Is a passive house built with solid construction, i.e., bricks, significantly more expensive?

- Is there any way to get an approximate price estimate for our “dream house”?

Many thanks in advance

Regards

Hugh60
W
Wanderdüne
25 Nov 2013 13:44
The cost of a stairlift is likely to be easily covered in a one-and-a-half or two-story house compared to a bungalow (smaller excavation, smaller foundation slab, smaller roof, etc.).

Additionally, achieving the desired living area in a bungalow is often difficult to align with optimal lighting conditions, which can further increase costs but also allows for interesting design solutions.

WD
H
Hugh60
25 Nov 2013 13:52
I still don’t understand why I end up with a larger exterior surface area with a square. If I build 15.5m (51 feet) wide and 11m (36 feet) long, that’s 132.5m² (1,427 sq ft) of exterior surface area (my calculation: 15.5 meters wide * 2.5 meters high * 2 for each side, and the same for the length), or did I just not pay attention in class? If I split the square in half and put one half on top of the other, I should get the same, right?
T
toxicmolotof
25 Nov 2013 13:57
I would say you weren’t paying attention.

The volume remains the same. The surface area changes.
H
Hugh60
25 Nov 2013 14:07
Okay, I just double-checked online and one of the previous posters was right, I completely messed up! ...

Now, back to the brick question:

Is there an alternative to brick construction that lasts just as long and might be better suited for a house like mine?
H
Hugh60
25 Nov 2013 14:26
Because wood always moves, and I don’t want to deal with wood-related work every time!
Jaydee25 Nov 2013 14:38
What kind of work do you see there?

I was referring to timber frame construction, not a solid wood house.