ᐅ Prefab House vs. Solid Construction – Requesting Urgent Advice!
Created on: 16 Aug 2009 21:40
E
emrahx99
Hello,
we urgently need advice:
We really like the prefabricated house builder HUF. The houses and floor plans are exactly our style (timber-framed house 2000). Unfortunately, the price is quite high.
We have already bought a plot of land and now only need the right house.
Question:
HUF is like the Mercedes of prefabricated house builders. If we have a house built similarly in style by a general contractor using traditional masonry construction with some modifications, could that possibly be cheaper? Or is there no chance? Are prefabricated houses always less expensive than masonry construction?
We would be very grateful for any answers!!!
PS: The architect fees (structural engineering, planning, building permit / planning permission, etc.) are not included here, as we have already negotiated these costs with the land purchase since the plot belonged to a construction company.
we urgently need advice:
We really like the prefabricated house builder HUF. The houses and floor plans are exactly our style (timber-framed house 2000). Unfortunately, the price is quite high.
We have already bought a plot of land and now only need the right house.
Question:
HUF is like the Mercedes of prefabricated house builders. If we have a house built similarly in style by a general contractor using traditional masonry construction with some modifications, could that possibly be cheaper? Or is there no chance? Are prefabricated houses always less expensive than masonry construction?
We would be very grateful for any answers!!!
PS: The architect fees (structural engineering, planning, building permit / planning permission, etc.) are not included here, as we have already negotiated these costs with the land purchase since the plot belonged to a construction company.
This discussion is about a Huf House,... comparable in the entry-level segment to a Mercedes.
However, if you take a conventional prefabricated house, such as a Massa House,...
it already has a lower rating in its new condition.
(Import from Poland aside.)
Even today, energy efficiency ratings play a major role.
Looking ahead, I can well imagine that building methods will become less important as they increasingly converge.
What will a solid masonry house still be in 30 years, a house where the load-bearing structure is still the wall, or a wall with a concrete shell in the wall construction?
Maybe we will be building with nanogel by then,...
The fact for me is that all currently conventionally built houses will no longer guarantee “retirement security” in 30 years if their energy status is no longer acceptable.
A house only becomes truly interesting when it is paid off and no longer requires costly renovations. Homeowners often end up paying double due to the mortgage anyway.
Best regards
However, if you take a conventional prefabricated house, such as a Massa House,...
it already has a lower rating in its new condition.
(Import from Poland aside.)
Even today, energy efficiency ratings play a major role.
Looking ahead, I can well imagine that building methods will become less important as they increasingly converge.
What will a solid masonry house still be in 30 years, a house where the load-bearing structure is still the wall, or a wall with a concrete shell in the wall construction?
Maybe we will be building with nanogel by then,...
The fact for me is that all currently conventionally built houses will no longer guarantee “retirement security” in 30 years if their energy status is no longer acceptable.
A house only becomes truly interesting when it is paid off and no longer requires costly renovations. Homeowners often end up paying double due to the mortgage anyway.
Best regards
parcus schrieb:
Well, it doesn’t really make much sense. There are prefabricated houses that are 30 years old. The problem, as I see it, is that more mistakes could have been made during the wall construction, or the particle boards still contain formaldehyde. I’m currently dealing with a renovation case, an Okal house. It smells very musty, the exterior walls need to be completely renovated down to the structural framework. The particle boards in the ceilings will be replaced with gypsum boards, I hope the interior walls will be okay... Best regardsThere are also plenty of 30-year-old solid houses that have wall construction problems, smell musty, and require renovation. Visit the new federal states in Germany, and you will probably find a similar situation to your Okal house.
Both options have their pros and cons.
For certain purposes, mass is necessary, for example as a heat reservoir or for sound insulation at specific frequencies.
Both timber and masonry houses represent extremes to me. However, I find the compromise of a composite construction, combining materials, quite interesting because each layer can then provide an optimal benefit.
I see this benefit as the main priority.
@hephta
Of course, I assume that Okal Haus builds their walls differently today.
But when I see the wall construction of Streif Haus mentioned above, even beyond the standard version, problems seem inevitable. In the climate and passive walls, the vapor diffusion barrier is located in the middle of the wall, apparently to save costs during manufacturing by simply adding extra insulation packages onto the energy wall.
Aside from that, the climate wall 40 with 0.15 is currently the standard.
For certain purposes, mass is necessary, for example as a heat reservoir or for sound insulation at specific frequencies.
Both timber and masonry houses represent extremes to me. However, I find the compromise of a composite construction, combining materials, quite interesting because each layer can then provide an optimal benefit.
I see this benefit as the main priority.
@hephta
Of course, I assume that Okal Haus builds their walls differently today.
But when I see the wall construction of Streif Haus mentioned above, even beyond the standard version, problems seem inevitable. In the climate and passive walls, the vapor diffusion barrier is located in the middle of the wall, apparently to save costs during manufacturing by simply adding extra insulation packages onto the energy wall.
Aside from that, the climate wall 40 with 0.15 is currently the standard.
parcus schrieb:
Both options have their pros and cons.
@hephta
Of course, I assume that Okal Haus builds the walls differently today.
But when I look at the wall construction of Streif Haus, as mentioned above, any deviation from the standard setup seems likely to cause problems. With the climate and passive walls, the vapor retarder is placed in the middle of the wall, apparently to save costs in production by simply adding extra insulation layers on the energy wall.
Not to mention that currently only the Climate Wall 40 with a U-value of 0.15 is standard.I’m curious about what specific problems are already expected. We are building a KfW40 house with Streif Haus.
The Climate Wall 40 doesn’t just involve adding additional insulation. It also uses an insulation material with a better thermal conductivity rating (WLG). Does that make it less problematic? Surely not, right?
6
6Richtige7 Dec 2009 10:45The wall construction is already fine as it is. The climate wall 40 includes an additional installation layer to prevent damage to the vapor barrier caused by outlets, screws, and similar fixtures.
additional installation layerbut not shown in the illustration, where only 60mm (2.4 inches) of insulation is presented again. The flush-mounted installation should be placed between the 60mm (2.4 inches) insulation plus vapor barrier and the drywall with a minimum of 40mm (1.6 inches).
Similar topics