ᐅ Bringing Living and Usable Area to a Common Standard for Comparison
Created on: 17 Sep 2019 09:31
J
Joachim_84
Hello and good morning,
I hope my question is appropriate here.
It concerns a semi-detached house on a single plot, where each unit has different living and usable floor areas.
Both sizes of the respective halves should be made comparable.
We have the following sizes:
Half 1:
Living area: 100 m² (1,076 sq ft)
Usable area: 30 m² (323 sq ft)
Half 2:
Living area: 80 m² (861 sq ft)
Usable area: 80 m² (861 sq ft)
Now I am trying to find a way to put the values on a “common denominator” so they can be compared. What I am looking for is an “official” conversion factor to make usable area comparable to living area, if such a thing exists. If not, the question is how these areas are practically compared.
Usable area logically counts less, since it is not heated or suitable for living.
I have already found the NFA (Net Floor Area) factor, but that only describes the ratio between usable area and gross floor area.
Simply adding both values together, in my opinion, also doesn’t make sense because of their different weighting.
Assuming the factor were around 0.7 (I am looking for something solid and official, not just a rough approximation),
I could calculate half 1 like this, for example:
30 m² usable area * 0.7 = 21 m² (fictitious living area)
100 m² (living area) + 21 m² (fictitious living area) = 121 comparative value
and half 2 like this:
80 m² usable area * 0.7 = 56 m² (fictitious living area)
80 m² (living area) + 56 m² (fictitious living area) = 136 comparative value
Could someone please help me and let me know if or how such size specifications with different weightings can be put on a comparable basis?
I hope my question is appropriate here.
It concerns a semi-detached house on a single plot, where each unit has different living and usable floor areas.
Both sizes of the respective halves should be made comparable.
We have the following sizes:
Half 1:
Living area: 100 m² (1,076 sq ft)
Usable area: 30 m² (323 sq ft)
Half 2:
Living area: 80 m² (861 sq ft)
Usable area: 80 m² (861 sq ft)
Now I am trying to find a way to put the values on a “common denominator” so they can be compared. What I am looking for is an “official” conversion factor to make usable area comparable to living area, if such a thing exists. If not, the question is how these areas are practically compared.
Usable area logically counts less, since it is not heated or suitable for living.
I have already found the NFA (Net Floor Area) factor, but that only describes the ratio between usable area and gross floor area.
Simply adding both values together, in my opinion, also doesn’t make sense because of their different weighting.
Assuming the factor were around 0.7 (I am looking for something solid and official, not just a rough approximation),
I could calculate half 1 like this, for example:
30 m² usable area * 0.7 = 21 m² (fictitious living area)
100 m² (living area) + 21 m² (fictitious living area) = 121 comparative value
and half 2 like this:
80 m² usable area * 0.7 = 56 m² (fictitious living area)
80 m² (living area) + 56 m² (fictitious living area) = 136 comparative value
Could someone please help me and let me know if or how such size specifications with different weightings can be put on a comparable basis?
Joachim_84 schrieb:
Half 1, living area: 100 m² (1,076 sq ft), usable area: 30 m² (323 sq ft) (basement)
Half 2: living area 80 m² (861 sq ft), usable area: 80 m² (861 sq ft) (solid outbuilding) Both feel equally valuable to me. There is a slight preference for half 2, as it seems to offer more value.
It depends on how much 1 m² (11 sq ft) of living space is worth in your area.
If the price per square meter is above average, the value of the solid outbuilding increases, since it has potential to be converted into living space. If that potential doesn’t exist, then I wouldn’t make a big issue out of it.