Hello everyone,
We are currently planning the construction of our single-family house and are considering building with precast concrete double-wall elements. We like this idea because concrete components are produced with precision, can be assembled quickly and in a planned manner, and allow for attractive exposed concrete surfaces inside. Additionally, there are several concrete plants nearby, so transportation distances would be short.
Our current plan is to build the ground floor using precast concrete elements and then construct a solid wood structure on top. As far as we know, it is rather uncommon to build single-family houses with concrete. We are wondering why this is the case. Is it due to insulation, indoor climate, costs?
How do the costs of building with precast concrete compare to those of a brick construction?
We are currently planning the construction of our single-family house and are considering building with precast concrete double-wall elements. We like this idea because concrete components are produced with precision, can be assembled quickly and in a planned manner, and allow for attractive exposed concrete surfaces inside. Additionally, there are several concrete plants nearby, so transportation distances would be short.
Our current plan is to build the ground floor using precast concrete elements and then construct a solid wood structure on top. As far as we know, it is rather uncommon to build single-family houses with concrete. We are wondering why this is the case. Is it due to insulation, indoor climate, costs?
How do the costs of building with precast concrete compare to those of a brick construction?
I hardly think anyone does it because... "we’ve always done it this way".
This is certainly not inherently a wrong argument (you shouldn’t necessarily do something the construction company has never done before...), but in my opinion, reinforced concrete or precast elements should not be dismissed so generally, because I believe that with proper planning, the cost differences are no longer decisive.
This is certainly not inherently a wrong argument (you shouldn’t necessarily do something the construction company has never done before...), but in my opinion, reinforced concrete or precast elements should not be dismissed so generally, because I believe that with proper planning, the cost differences are no longer decisive.
Harakiri schrieb:
I doubt many do it just because... "we have always done it this way".
That is certainly not necessarily a wrong argument (you probably shouldn’t do something the construction company has never done before...), but in my opinion, you shouldn’t completely dismiss reinforced concrete or precast elements, because with proper planning, the price differences are no longer decisive. I see that differently.
With the shell construction company that built our shell three years ago, we discussed many options at the time. It’s not a small company, and we know the owner very well. They do a lot of multi-story residential buildings and also general commercial construction.
Our basement was built with precast elements. That was a deal we made with them so that in the end it wouldn’t cost us more than a traditional cast-in-place concrete basement. But the time factor was important to them.
For the ground floor and upper floor, we were flexible regarding materials, and structurally we needed a concrete wall and some concrete elements. Therefore, we also talked about alternatives, like using all concrete, etc. Their clear statement was that from a cost perspective, it only pays off for larger projects (statics, etc.) — and of course, that doesn’t even consider the planning effort.
It may make a difference if you are a “prefab house company” with standard floor plans, reducing planning work through “series production.” But with custom floor plans where every time you have to carefully plan the technical installations, plumbing, heating, etc. before the shell construction — and each time work with different tradespeople — it’s very different.
If there were time or profit advantages for construction companies to use more concrete, it would become standard practice regardless of whether “it’s always been done this way” or not.
As mentioned before, I don’t believe that building with concrete in the single-family home sector is generally more cost-effective, but I do think the price difference is much smaller than people usually assume.
What puzzles me completely is that, nowadays, not everything in single-family home construction is planned across trades using BIM. It could potentially save a lot of trouble and site problems. Well, the industry is just slow to change – but once this becomes the standard (in 10 or 20 years?), the fear of upfront planning will likely ease somewhat.
What puzzles me completely is that, nowadays, not everything in single-family home construction is planned across trades using BIM. It could potentially save a lot of trouble and site problems. Well, the industry is just slow to change – but once this becomes the standard (in 10 or 20 years?), the fear of upfront planning will likely ease somewhat.
Similar topics