Hello everyone,
we are currently gathering ideas for our house. We are envisioning about 220m² (2,370 sq ft) of usable space (ground floor, upper floor, basement).
We already have a building plot of 1000m² (10,760 sq ft). The site slopes east to west at about 14% (meaning 1m (3.3 ft) of height per 7m (23 ft) of length). We want to take advantage of the evening sun and therefore plan to use the western basement rooms as living spaces. The eastern side of the basement would then be partially built into the hillside.
Now we have come up with the idea of dividing the planned usable area into 2 floors instead of 3 (ground floor, upper floor, basement). We expect this to reduce the number of stairs we have to use daily (for example, having the storage room on the same level as the kitchen) and to minimize space lost for stairs, among other benefits.
My question is:
Are there financial or other disadvantages to distributing the same usable area over 2 floors instead of 3? How does this affect the costs?
I appreciate any input :-)
Best regards
we are currently gathering ideas for our house. We are envisioning about 220m² (2,370 sq ft) of usable space (ground floor, upper floor, basement).
We already have a building plot of 1000m² (10,760 sq ft). The site slopes east to west at about 14% (meaning 1m (3.3 ft) of height per 7m (23 ft) of length). We want to take advantage of the evening sun and therefore plan to use the western basement rooms as living spaces. The eastern side of the basement would then be partially built into the hillside.
Now we have come up with the idea of dividing the planned usable area into 2 floors instead of 3 (ground floor, upper floor, basement). We expect this to reduce the number of stairs we have to use daily (for example, having the storage room on the same level as the kitchen) and to minimize space lost for stairs, among other benefits.
My question is:
Are there financial or other disadvantages to distributing the same usable area over 2 floors instead of 3? How does this affect the costs?
I appreciate any input :-)
Best regards
A bungalow is more expensive than a townhouse. I assume that, accordingly, a bungalow with a basement will also be more costly than a two-story house with a basement.
Furthermore, I wonder whether, despite having the same total area, it is possible to achieve the same distribution between living space and utility space.
For the three-story house, you have two full floors of 73m² (785 ft²) each plus the western half of the basement (36m² / 387 ft²) = 182m² (1,958 ft²) of living space.
The utility space would then be 38m² (409 ft²).
To get the same living space on two floors, you would need 72m² (775 ft²) of living space in the basement in addition to 110m² (1,184 ft²) on the upper floor.
It would need to be determined whether this is even feasible in terms of lighting.
Furthermore, I wonder whether, despite having the same total area, it is possible to achieve the same distribution between living space and utility space.
For the three-story house, you have two full floors of 73m² (785 ft²) each plus the western half of the basement (36m² / 387 ft²) = 182m² (1,958 ft²) of living space.
The utility space would then be 38m² (409 ft²).
To get the same living space on two floors, you would need 72m² (775 ft²) of living space in the basement in addition to 110m² (1,184 ft²) on the upper floor.
It would need to be determined whether this is even feasible in terms of lighting.
We are building three floors without a basement. We were told that building upwards is more cost-effective because there is less earthwork, foundation slab, and roofing involved.
And as Musketier already mentioned, is a basement (on a slope) even feasible?
Just think about how you would divide the two floors and how much space you would need.
And as Musketier already mentioned, is a basement (on a slope) even feasible?
Just think about how you would divide the two floors and how much space you would need.
Similar topics