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:
@K a t j a The challenge is exactly that: not having to make a final decision right now but keeping options open. Especially when it comes to deciding for or against a second child, we don’t think that’s a choice you have to make during the first year of the first child’s life. Many of our friends initially planned for one, then two, then back to one and ended up with three And I believe having fewer large rooms is less flexible than having several smaller ones. What would you do in our situation?The idea of building a “house for all situations” is nonsense. I think it’s fine to plan for a second child, but it’s ridiculous to try and plan for a possible disability 30 years from now. Maybe you should also come back down to earth a bit and stop planning a separate room for the child for every single minute of the day. They won’t want that anyway. I was glad just to keep my small room tidy. A second room would have been a punishment.With a total budget of 500K, you have to set limits somewhere. A walk-in closet is okay, but a ballroom-sized room just for shoes is quite questionable given the overall size. At that budget, the upper size limit is in my opinion about 145 square meters (1,560 square feet). Of course, this can vary significantly depending on the region. But if you are around that size, expect some significant cuts. Let’s not forget what the title says: unfavorable layout. Which can also mean terribly expensive.
schmeissrein17 Apr 2023 11:20I think all your objections are valid and justified; however, I wonder to what extent they can be taken into account without ending up with a completely different house design. The two captain’s gables are indeed a challenge, but we also want to be able to look at our house from the outside without crying from boredom. We could leave them out if necessary—but leaving them out means losing space upstairs, and then there would be even smaller rooms?!
X
xMisterDx17 Apr 2023 11:31Somewhat of a strange idea, really. I drive a Seat, which looks pretty boring as well. Of course, I'd rather drive a BMW 5 Series, but financially that's just not an option. I haven’t died from it, and when I’m inside— which makes up 99% of the time spent with the vehicle— I don’t see the exterior anymore.
You will have to decide whether you want to admire your house from the outside for 10 minutes every day, but accept compromises inside that won’t make anyone happy in the long run.
Or whether you prefer to be happy inside for 23 hours a day and, when looking at the house from outside, think, “Not exactly what we originally wanted, but you can’t have everything.”
Or you raise another 200,000 EUR and then you can have both.
You will have to decide whether you want to admire your house from the outside for 10 minutes every day, but accept compromises inside that won’t make anyone happy in the long run.
Or whether you prefer to be happy inside for 23 hours a day and, when looking at the house from outside, think, “Not exactly what we originally wanted, but you can’t have everything.”
Or you raise another 200,000 EUR and then you can have both.
W
WilderSueden17 Apr 2023 11:52schmeissrein schrieb:
we also want to be able to look at our house from the outside without crying from boredom But does the second captain’s gable really make that much of a difference? You chose a certain exterior shape, positioned the staircase centrally, and now you’re trying to arrange the rooms around it. That might work for 250sqm (2,690 sq ft), but not for half that size.
If you want an interesting house, you can also work well with color or landscaping.
schmeissrein schrieb:
I’m fine with leaving it out—but less space and leaving it out means losing space upstairs, and then the rooms get even smaller, right?! The captain’s gable is expensive. Every projection and recess costs money, the roof structure becomes more complex... for the same money, you get more square footage by simply enlarging the house in a regular way.
X
xMisterDx17 Apr 2023 12:06Above all, the captain’s gables pretty much ruin any flexible room layout.
Because you’re almost forced into the same grid you already have on the upper floor. This results in six rooms of 12m² (130ft²) each, with the office having to give up some space to the staircase.
This is problematic in every way. The walk-in closet is far too large and, on top of that, poorly shaped for wardrobes. You end up with 6 to 7m² (65 to 75ft²) of unused floor space in the middle. What’s the point?
The office is actually almost too small for productive work. And its layout is extremely inefficient. Where are you supposed to put a proper desk? What’s the narrow space in front of the window for? It’s useless.
Even if one child gets a combined playroom and bedroom, the bedroom is again too large at 12m² (130ft²) for one person, relative to the playroom.
You’re also wasting space in the bathroom. And forget about that “privacy screen” next to the toilet—you all know what I mean.
And once the kids reach the stage where they won’t use the toilet if someone else is showering, the privacy screen doesn’t help anymore. The bathroom becomes off-limits as soon as someone is inside.
Because you’re almost forced into the same grid you already have on the upper floor. This results in six rooms of 12m² (130ft²) each, with the office having to give up some space to the staircase.
This is problematic in every way. The walk-in closet is far too large and, on top of that, poorly shaped for wardrobes. You end up with 6 to 7m² (65 to 75ft²) of unused floor space in the middle. What’s the point?
The office is actually almost too small for productive work. And its layout is extremely inefficient. Where are you supposed to put a proper desk? What’s the narrow space in front of the window for? It’s useless.
Even if one child gets a combined playroom and bedroom, the bedroom is again too large at 12m² (130ft²) for one person, relative to the playroom.
You’re also wasting space in the bathroom. And forget about that “privacy screen” next to the toilet—you all know what I mean.
And once the kids reach the stage where they won’t use the toilet if someone else is showering, the privacy screen doesn’t help anymore. The bathroom becomes off-limits as soon as someone is inside.
B
BackSteinGotik17 Apr 2023 13:04xMisterDx schrieb:
It can be frustrating, but 12m² (130 square feet) for a child’s bedroom is borderline. Especially if you have a walk-in closet of 10m² (108 square feet). It also reflects the priority given to the children when the wardrobe space is almost as large as the rooms where a 16-year-old lives. Is that 12m² (130 square feet) the total area, or 12m² (130 square feet) of living space plus additional space under the sloped ceiling?
Personally, I’ve found 14m² (150 square feet) of living space, plus 1–2m² (11–22 square feet) of floor area under the slopes, to be quite reasonable; of course, bigger is always possible, but this size feels balanced to me.
Similar topics