ᐅ Single-family house with a stepped upper floor – Feedback/Discussion/Tips/Ideas
Created on: 30 Oct 2013 20:01
T
toxicmolotof
Hello dear forum community,
it seems there are quite a few building novices, construction experts, or those aspiring to become experts here. We currently belong to the last group, aiming to become more experienced. We are a young family with one child so far but plan to have a second child in the near future.
Therefore, we would like to present our design to you, hoping it can be thoroughly reviewed.
First: This drawing is the initial draft, which we can still change and for which we already have some ideas for adjustments.
Regarding this:
1) The children’s room on the ground floor is intended to become the master bedroom.
2) The master bedroom will accordingly become the children’s room.
3) The shower should be moved upstairs, the bathtub downstairs, making the bathroom slightly larger, with a window, located along the right side of the house extending to the lower exterior wall.
4) The utility room should be roughly halved, remaining in the center, possibly integrating the small storage room.
These are our ideas so far. What do you think?
it seems there are quite a few building novices, construction experts, or those aspiring to become experts here. We currently belong to the last group, aiming to become more experienced. We are a young family with one child so far but plan to have a second child in the near future.
Therefore, we would like to present our design to you, hoping it can be thoroughly reviewed.
First: This drawing is the initial draft, which we can still change and for which we already have some ideas for adjustments.
Regarding this:
1) The children’s room on the ground floor is intended to become the master bedroom.
2) The master bedroom will accordingly become the children’s room.
3) The shower should be moved upstairs, the bathtub downstairs, making the bathroom slightly larger, with a window, located along the right side of the house extending to the lower exterior wall.
4) The utility room should be roughly halved, remaining in the center, possibly integrating the small storage room.
These are our ideas so far. What do you think?
B
Bauexperte1 Nov 2013 11:52Hello,
For example, four years ago I explicitly discussed a Bauhaus design with the responsible case officer at the city planning office of Rösrath in a § 34 area—especially concerning the building height—before submitting the building permit application. Still, it was rejected and we had to lower the entire building, resulting in the garage sometimes suffering damage during heavy rain. Or the planning office of Neuss city caused a comparable mess a few years ago, which I could only resolve with the help of elected representatives. I could list countless examples; therefore, I always recommend getting statements from planning offices confirmed in writing.
I rather assume the actual cost for the project will be in the range of 215,000–220,000 EUR including architecture, structural engineering, and soil surveys. Plus additional construction-related costs of about 35,000–10,000 EUR, possibly higher foundation costs depending on the plot and if the neighbor has a basement, plus garages, plus painting and flooring, plus landscaping, and plus reserves for extras. I see the total investment more in the range of 300,000–320,000 EUR.
Regards, Bauexperte
toxicmolotow schrieb:Sorry, but from my experience, "more or less approved" doesn’t mean much. Only when the case officers also remember this "more or less" approval during the building permit application will it actually count.
The construction in this form was more or less approved by the planning authority.
For example, four years ago I explicitly discussed a Bauhaus design with the responsible case officer at the city planning office of Rösrath in a § 34 area—especially concerning the building height—before submitting the building permit application. Still, it was rejected and we had to lower the entire building, resulting in the garage sometimes suffering damage during heavy rain. Or the planning office of Neuss city caused a comparable mess a few years ago, which I could only resolve with the help of elected representatives. I could list countless examples; therefore, I always recommend getting statements from planning offices confirmed in writing.
toxicmolotow schrieb:Why choose a mix of materials for the building envelope?
Due to structural requirements, the ground floor will be built in solid construction with a concrete ceiling, the upper floor in lightweight timber frame construction.
toxicmolotow schrieb:Is this an estimate or do you already have quotes?
Regarding the capital investment: we estimate about 180,000 EUR in pure construction costs including engineering services, but excluding land, garages, utility connections, and extras like geothermal, fireplace, photovoltaic. Overall, we are around 250,000 EUR plus land.
I rather assume the actual cost for the project will be in the range of 215,000–220,000 EUR including architecture, structural engineering, and soil surveys. Plus additional construction-related costs of about 35,000–10,000 EUR, possibly higher foundation costs depending on the plot and if the neighbor has a basement, plus garages, plus painting and flooring, plus landscaping, and plus reserves for extras. I see the total investment more in the range of 300,000–320,000 EUR.
Regards, Bauexperte
T
toxicmolotof1 Nov 2013 12:27Fortunately, it’s not the building authority in Neuss. But our architect has discussed it with the planning office. I assume they will handle it properly. They have been doing this job for a long time and are well-established architects. The price is an estimate from the architect, as is the decision to change the structural material on the upper floor. The neighbor does not have a basement.
How did you arrive at the costs, or what is your basis for calculation?
How did you arrive at the costs, or what is your basis for calculation?
B
Bauexperte1 Nov 2013 13:16Hello,
In the Rhineland, a rough estimate of the expected construction costs for a conventional single-family home can be set very well at €1,500.00/sqm of living space (€1,500.00 per 10.76 sq ft). This figure reflects values derived from our completed projects and is continuously updated. In northern and eastern regions it is cheaper; in the southern parts of the country, it is more expensive. Based on the threads I read here, my estimates tend to be quite accurate if a financially sound (reliable) company with medium equipment and quality is awarded the contract.
However, you do not want to build a conventional single-family home but have chosen the Bauhaus style with an additional recessed upper floor. This clearly means the base price per sqm of living space must be set higher, as this architectural style requires significantly more craftsmanship. For example, the sealing of the ground floor ceiling in the area where the upper floor setback will create a roof terrace; the same applies to the design of the recessed upper floor in a different material, as well as the flat roof itself. Based on all experience, we are talking about construction costs of around €1,600.00 to 1,700.00/sqm of living space (about $1,600.00 to $1,700.00 per 10.76 sq ft), including soil analysis, architectural and structural engineering services, and a modern heating system (for example, a gas condensing boiler with heating support and solar domestic hot water or an air-to-water heat pump).
Typical additional building costs can be found here:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/ratgeber/bauherrenhilfe.422/bauherrenhilfe-vor-vertragsabschluss.424/bausumme.662/#Baunebenkosten%20und%20Grunderwerbsteuer
Since your building project is planned in a rather tight developing area, I recommended setting aside extra reserves for potential additional foundation costs. If no such costs arise, you will have more funds available for extras; if they do occur, you have them included in your budget. You would not be the first, nor the last, client who – even with a secure income – is denied additional financing.
The rest is covered by a flat rate for painting and flooring as well as landscaping included in the construction cost estimate amounting to EUR 25,000 (thousand euros), a prefabricated double garage costing EUR 11,000, and a contingency fund of EUR 10,000 for other extras.
Best regards, Bauexperte
toxicmolotow schrieb:You never mentioned anywhere that your architect spoke with the planning authority, or did I miss something? I have been doing this job for a long time as well; nevertheless, I am not immune to setbacks – which is exactly why I wrote my comment.
But our architect has discussed this with the planning authority. And I assume they handle it properly. They haven’t just started doing this job yesterday and are very experienced architects.
toxicmolotow schrieb:An initial cost estimate?
The price is an estimate from the architect.
toxicmolotow schrieb:I would like to understand that. What explanation did your architect give you? Normally, architects are the first to raise concerns when a mix of materials is mentioned.
... just like the decision to change the material for the structural engineering on the upper floor.
toxicmolotow schrieb:The calculation basis is your floor areas, broken down to the approximate living space of about 134 sqm (1440 sq ft), the building style of the house, and the assumption that a Kfw 70 efficiency house will be built.
How do you arrive at the costs or what is your calculation basis?
In the Rhineland, a rough estimate of the expected construction costs for a conventional single-family home can be set very well at €1,500.00/sqm of living space (€1,500.00 per 10.76 sq ft). This figure reflects values derived from our completed projects and is continuously updated. In northern and eastern regions it is cheaper; in the southern parts of the country, it is more expensive. Based on the threads I read here, my estimates tend to be quite accurate if a financially sound (reliable) company with medium equipment and quality is awarded the contract.
However, you do not want to build a conventional single-family home but have chosen the Bauhaus style with an additional recessed upper floor. This clearly means the base price per sqm of living space must be set higher, as this architectural style requires significantly more craftsmanship. For example, the sealing of the ground floor ceiling in the area where the upper floor setback will create a roof terrace; the same applies to the design of the recessed upper floor in a different material, as well as the flat roof itself. Based on all experience, we are talking about construction costs of around €1,600.00 to 1,700.00/sqm of living space (about $1,600.00 to $1,700.00 per 10.76 sq ft), including soil analysis, architectural and structural engineering services, and a modern heating system (for example, a gas condensing boiler with heating support and solar domestic hot water or an air-to-water heat pump).
Typical additional building costs can be found here:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/ratgeber/bauherrenhilfe.422/bauherrenhilfe-vor-vertragsabschluss.424/bausumme.662/#Baunebenkosten%20und%20Grunderwerbsteuer
Since your building project is planned in a rather tight developing area, I recommended setting aside extra reserves for potential additional foundation costs. If no such costs arise, you will have more funds available for extras; if they do occur, you have them included in your budget. You would not be the first, nor the last, client who – even with a secure income – is denied additional financing.
The rest is covered by a flat rate for painting and flooring as well as landscaping included in the construction cost estimate amounting to EUR 25,000 (thousand euros), a prefabricated double garage costing EUR 11,000, and a contingency fund of EUR 10,000 for other extras.
Best regards, Bauexperte
T
toxicmolotof1 Nov 2013 13:50I forgot to mention the architect. But it was stated somewhere above that there has been communication with the planning authority / building permit office. However, that’s not a problem. I think complications can always arise, but if everyone always assumes the worst-case scenario, hardly anyone would dare to build a house anymore.
This is indeed an initial cost estimate. Our architect has previously completed several projects using timber frame construction, and the calculations provided to previous clients were considered reasonable from their perspective. Of course, additional costs should always be taken into account, but if everyone adds a bit extra on top, the budget quickly gets out of hand.
Since we own the plot of land and (assuming the excavator doesn’t dig up the entire garden) the site preparation is already done, we won’t have to spend a single euro on the existing pool—not even on fruit shrubs or the lawn. Naturally, some work remains, which we have factored into the planning.
Additionally, we have a roofing company within the family, which might take on that particular trade. Obviously, salaries still need to be covered there, but at least the material costs contribute directly to our equity.
To be honest, I’m not worried about a possible additional financing round.
Regarding the mix of materials, do I need to mention structural engineering again? Building with a timber frame is lighter than using solid masonry, right? The walls on the upper floor do not directly rest on the load-bearing exterior walls on the ground floor. Initially, I didn’t think it was a great idea either, but that’s what the architect proposed.
Our architect estimates around 240 euros per cubic meter plus taxes, engineering fees, and so on. I find it very difficult to compare the individual cost items one-to-one.
This is indeed an initial cost estimate. Our architect has previously completed several projects using timber frame construction, and the calculations provided to previous clients were considered reasonable from their perspective. Of course, additional costs should always be taken into account, but if everyone adds a bit extra on top, the budget quickly gets out of hand.
Since we own the plot of land and (assuming the excavator doesn’t dig up the entire garden) the site preparation is already done, we won’t have to spend a single euro on the existing pool—not even on fruit shrubs or the lawn. Naturally, some work remains, which we have factored into the planning.
Additionally, we have a roofing company within the family, which might take on that particular trade. Obviously, salaries still need to be covered there, but at least the material costs contribute directly to our equity.
To be honest, I’m not worried about a possible additional financing round.
Regarding the mix of materials, do I need to mention structural engineering again? Building with a timber frame is lighter than using solid masonry, right? The walls on the upper floor do not directly rest on the load-bearing exterior walls on the ground floor. Initially, I didn’t think it was a great idea either, but that’s what the architect proposed.
Our architect estimates around 240 euros per cubic meter plus taxes, engineering fees, and so on. I find it very difficult to compare the individual cost items one-to-one.
T
toxicmolotof1 Nov 2013 17:56Basically, I am also considering the latter option, but even then, you never know who you will end up with or what quality they will deliver. There are also price differences here that are beyond reasonable.
If you want it done properly, you will likely expect standards comparable to an architect's fee.
If you want it done properly, you will likely expect standards comparable to an architect's fee.
T
toxicmolotof14 Nov 2013 21:06So, a new basis for discussion has arrived.
Of course, it is still basically the same house. Our architect has finalized the design (setback top floor with flat roof) with the building authority (verbally). It’s a medium-sized suburb with a pleasant relationship between homeowners, architects, and the building department. Naturally, someone could still cause problems, but so far, the relationship has been harmonious. You don’t always have to force your way through. For now, I don’t expect any complications.
1) The idea of converting the upper floor into a granny flat / secondary apartment really appealed to us personally. Either for our own child or who knows for whom. Of course, it’s not a full apartment, but as a 1-bedroom with kitchenette and bathroom unit, it’s quite interesting for students. The idea was there, but we couldn’t quite imagine the implementation. The current design of the upper floor really works for us, especially since there is space for a washing machine/dryer both upstairs and downstairs, and a small kitchen can be installed upstairs with little effort.
2) The windows facing the street (to the right) are exclusively in the utility room and bathroom, so they should have a relatively high sill height and be wide but shallow.
3) The kitchen door to the hallway was removed to make more room for tall cabinets, compensating for the lost pantry/kitchen storage room.
4) The previously forgotten fireplace has been added in the living/dining area. The chimney will continue along the exterior wall in the upper floor. It can even be cleaned from the outside through the passage to the existing building. This pleases the chimney sweep, and my wife even more.
5) The TV in the living room is not the central focus, so it will be placed "somewhere" on the wall where it doesn’t get in the way. If it causes glare, we still have roller shutters as a backup.
6) The master bedroom has moved to the ground floor, but we didn’t want to widen the living room at the expense of it, so our suggestion was to place the wardrobes in the room. Our architect turned that into this solution. Since our bedroom is mainly for sleeping and storing clothes, we actually like this solution as much or even better than our original idea.
7) Now a bit about energy/energy savings regulations/KfW70… The criticism and concerns expressed here about the relatively large building envelope compared to other houses are basically shared by the architect. He also expects somewhat stronger insulation than in typical standard houses, but since it’s not the first house with a setback floor, he doesn’t see an expensive or unsolvable problem. The structural engineer, who will also carry out the relevant energy calculations, will be involved shortly.
8) Regarding the difference in floor height between the room and roof terrace, he just looked at me like I was asking questions… Option 1: 10cm (4 inches) screed, or he suggests the roof terrace could be reached via a step. Due to insulation, this is unfortunately often the only sensible solution nowadays. But he promised it would look pretty good. I also don’t see anything wrong with how it would look. We could build without a roof terrace, but that would be wasted space. I share this assessment.
Now enjoy further lively discussions. What do you think? Better or worse than before?
Of course, it is still basically the same house. Our architect has finalized the design (setback top floor with flat roof) with the building authority (verbally). It’s a medium-sized suburb with a pleasant relationship between homeowners, architects, and the building department. Naturally, someone could still cause problems, but so far, the relationship has been harmonious. You don’t always have to force your way through. For now, I don’t expect any complications.
1) The idea of converting the upper floor into a granny flat / secondary apartment really appealed to us personally. Either for our own child or who knows for whom. Of course, it’s not a full apartment, but as a 1-bedroom with kitchenette and bathroom unit, it’s quite interesting for students. The idea was there, but we couldn’t quite imagine the implementation. The current design of the upper floor really works for us, especially since there is space for a washing machine/dryer both upstairs and downstairs, and a small kitchen can be installed upstairs with little effort.
2) The windows facing the street (to the right) are exclusively in the utility room and bathroom, so they should have a relatively high sill height and be wide but shallow.
3) The kitchen door to the hallway was removed to make more room for tall cabinets, compensating for the lost pantry/kitchen storage room.
4) The previously forgotten fireplace has been added in the living/dining area. The chimney will continue along the exterior wall in the upper floor. It can even be cleaned from the outside through the passage to the existing building. This pleases the chimney sweep, and my wife even more.
5) The TV in the living room is not the central focus, so it will be placed "somewhere" on the wall where it doesn’t get in the way. If it causes glare, we still have roller shutters as a backup.
6) The master bedroom has moved to the ground floor, but we didn’t want to widen the living room at the expense of it, so our suggestion was to place the wardrobes in the room. Our architect turned that into this solution. Since our bedroom is mainly for sleeping and storing clothes, we actually like this solution as much or even better than our original idea.
7) Now a bit about energy/energy savings regulations/KfW70… The criticism and concerns expressed here about the relatively large building envelope compared to other houses are basically shared by the architect. He also expects somewhat stronger insulation than in typical standard houses, but since it’s not the first house with a setback floor, he doesn’t see an expensive or unsolvable problem. The structural engineer, who will also carry out the relevant energy calculations, will be involved shortly.
8) Regarding the difference in floor height between the room and roof terrace, he just looked at me like I was asking questions… Option 1: 10cm (4 inches) screed, or he suggests the roof terrace could be reached via a step. Due to insulation, this is unfortunately often the only sensible solution nowadays. But he promised it would look pretty good. I also don’t see anything wrong with how it would look. We could build without a roof terrace, but that would be wasted space. I share this assessment.
Now enjoy further lively discussions. What do you think? Better or worse than before?
Similar topics