ᐅ Realistic Cost Estimate: Single-Family Home with Challenging Site Access
Created on: 20 Jan 2023 10:50
S
schmeissrein
Hello everyone,
I have been following this forum for a while and first of all, a big thank you to everyone who shares their advice here and sometimes also speaks hard truths. I didn’t originally want to create a new thread but intended to form an opinion based on other discussions. However, you convinced me that this building project is too individual for that. So here is our plan:
- Building a new single-family house in the far north of Germany (Schleswig-Flensburg region).
- Plot size is over 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft).
- Total square meters are not so important as long as the layout works.
- Basement is not planned.
What we would like:
- Open-plan kitchen-living area of at least 36m² (388 sq ft).
- Guest room (at least 10m² / 108 sq ft) and small guest bathroom with shower on the ground floor, so that in old age, with disability, or a broken leg, the ground floor can be used independently and possibly serve as a bedroom.
- Utility room / storage room / pantry with heat pump of at least 8m² (86 sq ft) (KfW 40 standard would be great, of course).
- Upper floor with three rooms (1 office, 1 master bedroom, 1 child’s room) each at least 14m² (151 sq ft) and one bathroom. Our dream would be a “walk-in” (what a silly word – aren’t all showers walk-in?) shower to avoid having to clean those limescale-rusty, annoying shower enclosures.
- We could contribute labor for garden landscaping and painting/wallpapering; otherwise, we would prefer a turnkey build.
As for the house style, regionally typical Frisian houses or captain’s houses (with all the “cute” features like small gables, etc.) are in consideration, or also not completely unimaginative “normal” single-family houses. We are not afraid of Bauhaus-style concrete marvels either, but those tend to be more expensive. In terms of fittings, no “gold-plated faucets” and no smart home – but decent and presentable.
The big BUT: the plot is not connected to utilities, and the distance to the street is about 65m (213 ft), of which 50m (164 ft) is a paved driveway and paved parking area that would have to be dug up (across another property). The connection costs and incidental construction costs worry us quite a bit. Does anyone have experience with such a “mammoth connection” for a relatively small building project? What realistic costs should we expect for both?
We would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this project, thank you very much in advance!
I have been following this forum for a while and first of all, a big thank you to everyone who shares their advice here and sometimes also speaks hard truths. I didn’t originally want to create a new thread but intended to form an opinion based on other discussions. However, you convinced me that this building project is too individual for that. So here is our plan:
- Building a new single-family house in the far north of Germany (Schleswig-Flensburg region).
- Plot size is over 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft).
- Total square meters are not so important as long as the layout works.
- Basement is not planned.
What we would like:
- Open-plan kitchen-living area of at least 36m² (388 sq ft).
- Guest room (at least 10m² / 108 sq ft) and small guest bathroom with shower on the ground floor, so that in old age, with disability, or a broken leg, the ground floor can be used independently and possibly serve as a bedroom.
- Utility room / storage room / pantry with heat pump of at least 8m² (86 sq ft) (KfW 40 standard would be great, of course).
- Upper floor with three rooms (1 office, 1 master bedroom, 1 child’s room) each at least 14m² (151 sq ft) and one bathroom. Our dream would be a “walk-in” (what a silly word – aren’t all showers walk-in?) shower to avoid having to clean those limescale-rusty, annoying shower enclosures.
- We could contribute labor for garden landscaping and painting/wallpapering; otherwise, we would prefer a turnkey build.
As for the house style, regionally typical Frisian houses or captain’s houses (with all the “cute” features like small gables, etc.) are in consideration, or also not completely unimaginative “normal” single-family houses. We are not afraid of Bauhaus-style concrete marvels either, but those tend to be more expensive. In terms of fittings, no “gold-plated faucets” and no smart home – but decent and presentable.
The big BUT: the plot is not connected to utilities, and the distance to the street is about 65m (213 ft), of which 50m (164 ft) is a paved driveway and paved parking area that would have to be dug up (across another property). The connection costs and incidental construction costs worry us quite a bit. Does anyone have experience with such a “mammoth connection” for a relatively small building project? What realistic costs should we expect for both?
We would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this project, thank you very much in advance!
schmeissrein schrieb:
There is a huge chestnut tree to the north, and for reasons of shade and pollen, we don’t want to build too close to it. Of course, you can’t know that just from the plan,you also completely ignored the request for a satellite photo, that’s how you sabotage any kind of help
schmeissrein4 Apr 2023 07:52This has less to do with sabotaging help and more with the fact that 1. the satellite images no longer accurately reflect the current state of the property, and I don’t want to explain the situation for every single tree mentioned—how we envision it and how it actually looks in reality; and 2. we have a veto right for all parties involved in the construction, and one of them requested that no satellite images be shared due to privacy concerns (whether this is justified or not is open for discussion, but I am happy to respect others’ wishes).
H
hanghaus20234 Apr 2023 08:33@Nida35a That really takes the motivation to help away.
H
hanghaus20234 Apr 2023 08:39schmeissrein schrieb:
This has less to do with sabotage of help and more with the fact that, first, the satellite images no longer accurately reflect the current condition of the property, and I don’t want to explain for every single tree mentioned how we are thinking about it now and what the reality is. Second, all parties involved in the construction have veto rights, and one of them requested that no satellite images be shared due to privacy concerns (whether justified or not is open for discussion, but I prefer to respect others’ wishes). You are right about that. Just not for every tree. For one that is supposed to remain, it belongs in the input in the first post, and of course it should also be marked on the plan.
schmeissrein schrieb:
There is a huge chestnut tree to the north, and for reasons of shade and pollen dispersal, we don’t want to build too close to it. It will only get bigger. I would have already planned to stay out of the falling range and would never place my new house next to it. Chestnut trees age and become weaker, storms are getting stronger, and individual branches over 30cm (12 inches) in diameter can cause significant damage. That’s why it’s worth mentioning in the first post.
schmeissrein4 Apr 2023 10:21First of all: no one here is obliged to help or comment. Likewise, I am not obligated to share details that family members have opposed publishing. Unlike many original posters who start a thread, receive a lot of help, and then disappear without any thanks, I try to respond to every question or answer despite having limited time, and I appreciate all tips, whether more or less helpful, because I value your input! I understand the frustration over slow information flow, but I don’t accept the blame here because I have provided many updates and try to remain appropriate despite occasionally unnecessarily grumpy tones.
The issue with the first post is a bit funny: there is no editing function, and if you have followed the thread closely, you will see that initially, we only needed to accommodate one house. The trees at the edge of the property were therefore irrelevant at that time; the house was simply planned to be placed right in the middle of the green field. The need to consider the trees only arose when planning for two buildings, which is why I could only share that information now—you know that one thing certain in construction is that nothing is certain.
The issue with the first post is a bit funny: there is no editing function, and if you have followed the thread closely, you will see that initially, we only needed to accommodate one house. The trees at the edge of the property were therefore irrelevant at that time; the house was simply planned to be placed right in the middle of the green field. The need to consider the trees only arose when planning for two buildings, which is why I could only share that information now—you know that one thing certain in construction is that nothing is certain.