ᐅ Single-family house in Bauhaus style with 180 m² living area and double garage
Created on: 2 Aug 2019 20:39
N
Notstrom
Hello everyone,
after reading quietly for a long time, here comes my first post – I really need your opinions and advice now. Warning: This will be quite comprehensive, the number of questions just doesn’t get any smaller.
We (my wife, our child, and potentially another child in the future) are going to buy a plot of land from a municipality in southern Baden (notary appointment on 14.08.).
The plot is 530m² (5705 sq ft) and is quite "free" in terms of building regulations, meaning roof shapes and such are very open.
So, here is our idea:
- We want a single-family house (Bauhaus style) with a living area of 180m² (don’t ask why 180m² (1938 sq ft); it was just a number that has become more and more fixed…) no luxury fixtures, smart home only at a basic level if at all, a tiled stove, two children’s rooms, possibly a ventilation system, heat pump… How much living space do we actually need? Our research hasn’t made this clear to us…
- We also want a basement primarily for storage and house technology – later expansion for a hobby room/office is possible but not planned initially.
- A double garage (or alternatively a single garage and a carport) will round off the “hard facts.”
- Energy efficiency: Good question – we would like to do “something,” but that something would be closer to KfW 55 standard rather than KfW 40 plus.
- Budget: We had always aimed around the magic number of half a million euros, but reality caught up with us. So, we adjusted our budget as follows:
- The plot costs 150,000 EUR, the architects’ current estimates (+/- 15% deviation, but they assured us this is a conservative estimate and likely the upper limit) range between 550,000 EUR and 650,000 EUR (excluding own work but including all additional services).
Therefore, our maximum budget for the entire project is set at 800,000 EUR, including the plot, the house with all additional services, and about 50,000 EUR for kitchen and so forth.
- We plan own work only for the “usual” things like flooring, possibly painting, and the garden.
- Through my father’s network, we know some craftsmen he has worked with in his former business (self-employed in landscaping), so, for example, we get the excavation for the foundation at a lower cost.
- We had contact for a long time with a large, well-known prefab house builder – timber-based – but after seeing the price, we decided against it (note: we once lived in a timber-frame apartment building, which was a nightmare, so we were somewhat prejudiced regarding timber construction).
- So far, we have been in contact with four architects. One was removed due to price (about 20% more expensive than the other two), and another did not convince us, so we are left with two. (After reducing our shortlist to two, a third architect was recommended, who we met for coffee, but he was disorganized, his office was a mess, so we didn’t pursue that further.)
- With the two remaining architects, we agreed to get back to them at the beginning of next week with our decision.
- Meanwhile, the Association of Private Homeowners informed us in their welcome email that cost estimates in the model with architect and individual trades may be exceeded by 30 to 40%.
- We are a bit confused now because we respect the price framework, and the potential 15% deviation on 600,000 - 650,000 EUR (i.e., between 90,000 EUR - 100,000 EUR, which is no small amount) worries us.
What do you think about all this? Is the cost estimate (details below) realistic? Realistically on the high side? Should we perhaps go for a general contractor after all? Do you know any? (Is it even allowed to speak about names here?)
As mentioned above, here is the rough cost estimate we received from our architect number 1:
*: All prices excluding tax
a) Building – Construction: 371,500
b) Building – Technical systems: 100,000
- Heating: 26,000
- Sanitary installations: 25,000
- Ventilation system: 14,000
- Electrical: 30,000
- Wastewater lift pump: 5,000
c) Additional building costs: 79,000
- Architect including drainage planning: 55,000 (we preliminarily agreed on 60,000 gross, including tax)
- Structural engineer: 7,500
- Energy consultant: 1,200
- Surveyor: 1,500
- Soil investigation report: 1,000
- Permit fees: 3,800
- Sewage connection development: 200
- Electrical connection, telecom connection, cable connection, water connection: 4,500
- Construction power supply: 1,300
- Other auxiliary costs/fees: 2,000
This brings us to about 550,000 net plus 19% VAT = 655,000 EUR.
What do you think? Is this justified? Overplanned? Conservative? Too expensive?
Should we opt for a general contractor to gain “planning security”?
Thanks a lot in advance for reading and for your advice.
after reading quietly for a long time, here comes my first post – I really need your opinions and advice now. Warning: This will be quite comprehensive, the number of questions just doesn’t get any smaller.
We (my wife, our child, and potentially another child in the future) are going to buy a plot of land from a municipality in southern Baden (notary appointment on 14.08.).
The plot is 530m² (5705 sq ft) and is quite "free" in terms of building regulations, meaning roof shapes and such are very open.
So, here is our idea:
- We want a single-family house (Bauhaus style) with a living area of 180m² (don’t ask why 180m² (1938 sq ft); it was just a number that has become more and more fixed…) no luxury fixtures, smart home only at a basic level if at all, a tiled stove, two children’s rooms, possibly a ventilation system, heat pump… How much living space do we actually need? Our research hasn’t made this clear to us…
- We also want a basement primarily for storage and house technology – later expansion for a hobby room/office is possible but not planned initially.
- A double garage (or alternatively a single garage and a carport) will round off the “hard facts.”
- Energy efficiency: Good question – we would like to do “something,” but that something would be closer to KfW 55 standard rather than KfW 40 plus.
- Budget: We had always aimed around the magic number of half a million euros, but reality caught up with us. So, we adjusted our budget as follows:
- The plot costs 150,000 EUR, the architects’ current estimates (+/- 15% deviation, but they assured us this is a conservative estimate and likely the upper limit) range between 550,000 EUR and 650,000 EUR (excluding own work but including all additional services).
Therefore, our maximum budget for the entire project is set at 800,000 EUR, including the plot, the house with all additional services, and about 50,000 EUR for kitchen and so forth.
- We plan own work only for the “usual” things like flooring, possibly painting, and the garden.
- Through my father’s network, we know some craftsmen he has worked with in his former business (self-employed in landscaping), so, for example, we get the excavation for the foundation at a lower cost.
- We had contact for a long time with a large, well-known prefab house builder – timber-based – but after seeing the price, we decided against it (note: we once lived in a timber-frame apartment building, which was a nightmare, so we were somewhat prejudiced regarding timber construction).
- So far, we have been in contact with four architects. One was removed due to price (about 20% more expensive than the other two), and another did not convince us, so we are left with two. (After reducing our shortlist to two, a third architect was recommended, who we met for coffee, but he was disorganized, his office was a mess, so we didn’t pursue that further.)
- With the two remaining architects, we agreed to get back to them at the beginning of next week with our decision.
- Meanwhile, the Association of Private Homeowners informed us in their welcome email that cost estimates in the model with architect and individual trades may be exceeded by 30 to 40%.
- We are a bit confused now because we respect the price framework, and the potential 15% deviation on 600,000 - 650,000 EUR (i.e., between 90,000 EUR - 100,000 EUR, which is no small amount) worries us.
What do you think about all this? Is the cost estimate (details below) realistic? Realistically on the high side? Should we perhaps go for a general contractor after all? Do you know any? (Is it even allowed to speak about names here?)
As mentioned above, here is the rough cost estimate we received from our architect number 1:
*: All prices excluding tax
a) Building – Construction: 371,500
- Shell construction: 170,000
- Carpentry, roof construction: 65,000
- Scaffolding: 5,000
- Interior & exterior plaster: 30,000
- Tiling work: 13,000
- Screed: 8,500
- Interior doors: 5,000
- Metalwork: 7,000
- Window installation: 40,000
- Painting: 8,000
- Flooring work: 5,000
- Drywall construction: 15,000
b) Building – Technical systems: 100,000
- Heating: 26,000
- Sanitary installations: 25,000
- Ventilation system: 14,000
- Electrical: 30,000
- Wastewater lift pump: 5,000
c) Additional building costs: 79,000
- Architect including drainage planning: 55,000 (we preliminarily agreed on 60,000 gross, including tax)
- Structural engineer: 7,500
- Energy consultant: 1,200
- Surveyor: 1,500
- Soil investigation report: 1,000
- Permit fees: 3,800
- Sewage connection development: 200
- Electrical connection, telecom connection, cable connection, water connection: 4,500
- Construction power supply: 1,300
- Other auxiliary costs/fees: 2,000
This brings us to about 550,000 net plus 19% VAT = 655,000 EUR.
What do you think? Is this justified? Overplanned? Conservative? Too expensive?
Should we opt for a general contractor to gain “planning security”?
Thanks a lot in advance for reading and for your advice.
Notstroms Architekt schrieb:
I wanted to verify the construction costs and created a cost estimate [...]Based on this, I calculated the fees according to HOAI, which amounts to €62,500 netJust to clarify, this is not the usual procedure. Of course, he can estimate his fees based on his cost estimate, but the fee basis is the cost calculation in service phase 3, which is inherently more accurate regardless of the precision he attributes to his estimate, because it already includes specific details.
The flat fee of €55,000 for the tasks listed in the offer raises doubts for me. Why does he list vague service descriptions in bullet points instead of simply referring to the basic services under HOAI? Since there is no minimum fee anymore, he could easily offer it exactly like that for simplicity.
You risk disputes over the scope of services later on. He states that "design planning" is included, but what about service phases 1 and 2? Which "calculations" are included in the building permit / planning permission documents that inflate his price from about €1,800 according to HOAI to a flat €5,000? What exactly is covered by "construction management"? He writes "weekly inspections by an experienced site manager"; is that sufficient?
You should clarify such details beforehand. The simplest way would be, as mentioned, to commission according to HOAI, for which the necessary case law already exists.
Hello everyone,
We have now accepted the architect’s proposal – the details will follow in the next few days, but it is basically based on HOAI service phases 1-8.
_____
The architect is already gaining momentum – initial offers for the soil investigation have started to come in.
We have now accepted the architect’s proposal – the details will follow in the next few days, but it is basically based on HOAI service phases 1-8.
_____
The architect is already gaining momentum – initial offers for the soil investigation have started to come in.
Hello everyone,
A quick question regarding our draft contract: We want to build with the general contractor. The draft contract is ready, and there is a handshake agreement with the architect as well. Now, our contact person from the Private Homeowners Association raised a few points to consider, which I have directed to the architect. The architect reacted somewhat irritably. What is your opinion? Is this justified? Am I really being “too annoying,” or have I hit a “sore spot”? I don’t know if I am being unnecessarily paranoid or if I am acting exactly as I should... I know that different standards apply in construction...
A quick question regarding our draft contract: We want to build with the general contractor. The draft contract is ready, and there is a handshake agreement with the architect as well. Now, our contact person from the Private Homeowners Association raised a few points to consider, which I have directed to the architect. The architect reacted somewhat irritably. What is your opinion? Is this justified? Am I really being “too annoying,” or have I hit a “sore spot”? I don’t know if I am being unnecessarily paranoid or if I am acting exactly as I should... I know that different standards apply in construction...
- Our architect wants to exclude work phase 9 (LPH9) from the contract. The reason given is: supervising the building for 5 years after handover – the effort is not calculable. I have never had that in any client contract, and you probably won’t find an architect who agrees to sign that. We supervise the building until the defect-free handover, your move-in, and the final invoices from the contractors. However, the Private Homeowners Association definitely recommends including this. What is your opinion? Is this really unrealistic, or is the architect deliberately trying not to include it?
After the “defect-free” acceptance, I don’t see any issues arising—except for hidden defects—that would require your supervision. In such cases, a lawyer would probably be more useful than an architect (?). On what grounds does the association base its opinion?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
According to the Association of Private Homeowners
And
In response, the architect says (which sounds absolutely plausible to me)
However, that argument is just a pretext. The real reason is: In our opinion, we do not receive enough fees for that!
However, that should not and need not concern you in principle. The responsibility for service phase 9 (maintenance phase) is the best motivation for service phase 7, the construction management. Good construction management can significantly reduce the effort required in service phase 7, or conversely... poor construction management leads to high demands during the warranty period. It’s in their hands!!! And in my opinion, it should stay that way.
Please keep this— for your own interest— as part of the architect’s contract.
And
However, that argument is just a pretext. The real reason is: In our opinion, we do not receive enough fees for that!
However, that should not and need not concern you in principle. The responsibility for service phase 9 (maintenance phase) is the best motivation for service phase 7, the construction management. Good construction management can significantly reduce the effort required in service phase 7, or conversely... poor construction management leads to high demands during the warranty period. It’s in their hands!!! And in my opinion, it should stay that way.
Please keep this— for your own interest— as part of the architect’s contract.
In response, the architect says (which sounds absolutely plausible to me)
I do not generally agree to service phase 9 according to HOAI. This is the support of the building after handover over 5 years – the effort cannot be calculated. I have not been commissioned to do this for a single client, and you will probably not find any architect who agrees to this. We support the building until defect-free handover, your move-in, and the final invoicing of the contractors. I do not agree to this for my industrial clients either, and it is not even required there.
If your expert claims this is common practice, please have them contact the Baden-Württemberg Chamber of Engineers and inquire. Their advice to us on this matter is different.
The Chamber of Engineers is naturally biased in its viewpoint—just as the Homeowners’ Association is from the opposite perspective—and the consideration of "whether it is worthwhile in terms of fees" is perfectly legitimate, so I could not find it objectionable. In my opinion, what should be relevant for you is to consider what can still happen in the period between the "defect-free acceptance" and the "expiration of the warranty period for hidden defects"—and here, I don’t see anything where an architect could benefit you: in such cases, you are the warranty claimant, must identify yourself as such, and a lawyer can advise you more competently on the manner, form, and deadlines of this action than an architect. You hold the warranty claims, and asserting them is a legal transaction. The architect could serve as a technical advisor—but that’s all; you could not give them a mandate under the legal advisory laws. In a serious case, a lawyer is more helpful—even if they might need an expert witness for technical expertise—than a knowledgeable architect who legally may not represent you. From my perspective, Phase 9 of the services only serves as a category for service and billing matters that may arise after the completion of Phase 8, so that the architect or engineer is not suddenly operating without the framework of the official fee structure regulations. I see no disadvantage for consumers in waiving Phase 9. In my view, construction is completed upon finishing, after which facility management follows (for which I do not see a need for a civil engineer).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics