Hello everyone,
I’m new here and would like to introduce myself/us and share our current situation:
I am 44 and my partner is 46. We currently live with our 1.5-year-old son in my condominium (107 sqm (1150 sq ft); purchased before we met). Since my partner has a one-hour commute each way and we have both had a long-standing interest in owning a house with a garden, we decided to buy a house roughly midway between our workplaces.
Initially, we planned to buy an existing property, but after viewing several, we increasingly felt that for a bit more money, we could get significantly more value with a new build (although I’m starting to doubt our assessment now, but oh well). The high additional costs, some of which were hard to verify, were also off-putting.
So, in September 2019, we put our name on the waiting list for a new development and have now actually secured the plot we liked best from the available options. We signed the purchase contract about a month ago.
Months before, we had already talked to banks and home builders and visited show home villages to get a sense of current houses. The banks gave us the go-ahead for a rough budget, while the builders understandably said they couldn’t meaningfully start discussions until the plot was confirmed.
Now, we’ve presented our plot (which we have also had professionally surveyed). It is important for us to build with a local provider.
Currently, three builders are in the running (plus a larger prefab house builder as a possible fourth, potentially cheaper option). We have received floor plan proposals from all three; one produced a plan for a house in a similar location, while the other two created rough floor plans based on our ideas (which we also received).
Our big dilemma is that we can’t decide which builder to proceed with.
Two of the companies build solid/masonry houses, and one builds timber frame houses. Intuitively, we both feel masonry houses are of better quality (which might now just be a prejudice depending on the builder?), but the same gut feeling trusts the timber frame builder most. We naturally also asked around, and it was thanks to recommendations that we found these three/four options.
Each has its pros and cons for us:
Masonry 1: So far, we have mostly been in contact with a seemingly competent sales rep rather than those who will actually build with and for us (site manager, etc.). They did quite a bit of preliminary work—asking about our wishes and having the architect create a special floor plan—but without fully considering the site’s challenges. Unfortunately, we’ve heard from an acquaintance that they are having problems towards the end (crooked walls, many windows cracked during installation, subcontractors not as local as promised, etc.). Two acquaintances also report that costs significantly exceeded the contract price.
Masonry 2: Didn’t put much effort into planning or our wishes; the floor plan pulled from the drawer at the second meeting might actually be okay, but we spent the entire first meeting discussing a plan that had nothing to do with what we wanted. He simply didn’t listen to our ideas. Advantage: He knows the development very well as he has built several houses there. Everyone we spoke with had very positive things to say about the company. Our contact person is co-owner and also site manager, so we already know who we would be dealing with. Since we’ve only had evening appointments, he seemed exhausted and not particularly attentive—maybe just bad timing.
Timber 1: The whole team gives a sincere, open, and professionally sound impression. The company is seemingly located deep in the woods, where the wood is processed onsite. Their architect personally visited our plot. He also pointed out many structural and legal aspects. The design he presented some weeks later incorporated our wishes as much as possible and included some nice ideas. They also directed us to an ongoing site where they are building a single-family house on a slope, which we visited today to get an impression of the finished product.
Timber 2: Like Masonry 1, we have only talked to a sales rep here. It is a smaller prefab home company, but with a house in a show village where we also met for a discussion. The gentleman took almost three hours for us, and we learned a lot about general costs and other aspects. The company offers both pre-configured homes and custom designs. The main advantage here is likely a somewhat lower price while still building more solidly than much of the prefab competition. Acquaintances who searched for a year for a suitable builder, and were quite picky, chose this company and are happy so far.
Regarding how it feels to work with them, we would currently prefer Timber 1. But we are unsure if we can imagine building with wood. My main concerns are faster depreciation and potentially lower long-term value. Is that a misconception? Are there good and bad timber frame builders? Also, the house with this company wouldn’t be cheaper or ready to move into faster than with the masonry builders. The company always points to the excellent indoor climate in a timber house. But is that really noticeable?
This company works with separate offers: one for planning including submitting the building permit / planning permission, then a separate one for construction. So we could at least have them design the house, but does it make sense to take that plan to another builder afterward?
(In general, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled about the offer prices—maybe I was a bit naive. Anyway, all three builders want approximately €500,000 to €550,000 net for a turnkey house with about 160 to 180 sqm (1700 to 1937 sq ft) of living space and a double garage (although one does not even include underground garage construction). That’s actually too much for our budget, and we need to see where we can save €50,000. But that’s not the topic of this post.)
Very long text—my questions:
- How do you assess the quality of such custom timber frame houses?
- How important is a good feeling about the builder to you? Would you weigh that more heavily than (possibly irrational) concerns about the building material?
Thank you very much for your thoughts! We really can’t make progress and appreciate any input.
I don’t know if it makes sense for this thread to fill in the data, but just in case, here are the details.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 791 sqm (8509 sq ft)
Slope: yes
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Building envelope, building line & boundary: see attachment
Number of parking spaces: 2 (double garage planned)
Storeys: 2–2.5 (garden level/partial basement, ground floor, and possibly half attic as a gallery with an open space above the ground floor)
Roof style: gable roof (35–42° specified)
Orientation: open
Maximum heights/limits: ridge height: 6.5 m (21 ft 3 in); full height: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
Other requirements: distance from house to street approx. 4.5 m (15 ft); (site slopes downward from street)
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type:
Unfortunately, we are restricted to a gable roof by the development plan; otherwise, I would have chosen a clear Bauhaus-style form.
Basement, storeys:
Garden level with 1/4 basement and 3/4 sleeping areas. Above, ground floor living spaces and possibly half an attic (gallery with open space and one room).
Number of occupants, ages:
3–4 persons: 44 and 46 years old; son 1.5 years and partner’s 12-year-old daughter (who either stays every other weekend or lives there full-time).
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Because the garage will likely require a basement due to the slope, we planned the basement (storage, possibly workshop) there with access from both the garden side and the house. The garden/basement level itself would contain the utility and laundry room, three bedrooms, and the main bathroom. On the ground floor (level with the street and also accessible from the garage), the living area with kitchen, open living and dining area, pantry/utility room, an office/guest room, and a guest bathroom are planned. An architect from one builder showed us the option of a half attic as a gallery with open ceiling over the living area plus a small room (guest room/office), which I really like.
Office: family use or home office?
Home office will definitely be used partly.
Overnight guests per year:
Hard to say, but a small guest room is planned.
Open or closed architecture:
Rather open in the living area, with an emphasis on views to the unobstructed, sloping greenery (southeast) through high ceilings (no intermediate ceiling there) and large windows.
Open kitchen, kitchen island:
Kitchen can be separated with a sliding door; kitchen island not necessary.
Number of dining seats:
6
Fireplace:
Preferred (or stove), but not mandatory.
Music/speaker wall:
Yes
Balcony, roof terrace:
Balcony on the ground floor facing southeast (preferably partially integrated into the house), south.
Garage, carport:
Garage preferred.
Utility garden, greenhouse:
Partly utility garden, partly space for digging and attractive landscaping, partly play space for our son.
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, including reasons for choices or exclusions:
We envision a KfW55-equivalent house with a (prepared) photovoltaic system.
I want the ground floor designed so that if mobility decreases later, we don’t have to move immediately and can live on one level. Therefore, an extra room on the ground floor is a must, currently for an office/guest room and later convertible to a bedroom. The guest bathroom should also have a shower for the same reason, and somewhere on the ground floor a washing machine connection should be considered.
I tend towards spaciousness and lots of living space with many rooms, but unfortunately, the budget limits that significantly. My partner is more minimalistic and wouldn’t mind if the house wasn’t too large.
I’m new here and would like to introduce myself/us and share our current situation:
I am 44 and my partner is 46. We currently live with our 1.5-year-old son in my condominium (107 sqm (1150 sq ft); purchased before we met). Since my partner has a one-hour commute each way and we have both had a long-standing interest in owning a house with a garden, we decided to buy a house roughly midway between our workplaces.
Initially, we planned to buy an existing property, but after viewing several, we increasingly felt that for a bit more money, we could get significantly more value with a new build (although I’m starting to doubt our assessment now, but oh well). The high additional costs, some of which were hard to verify, were also off-putting.
So, in September 2019, we put our name on the waiting list for a new development and have now actually secured the plot we liked best from the available options. We signed the purchase contract about a month ago.
Months before, we had already talked to banks and home builders and visited show home villages to get a sense of current houses. The banks gave us the go-ahead for a rough budget, while the builders understandably said they couldn’t meaningfully start discussions until the plot was confirmed.
Now, we’ve presented our plot (which we have also had professionally surveyed). It is important for us to build with a local provider.
Currently, three builders are in the running (plus a larger prefab house builder as a possible fourth, potentially cheaper option). We have received floor plan proposals from all three; one produced a plan for a house in a similar location, while the other two created rough floor plans based on our ideas (which we also received).
Our big dilemma is that we can’t decide which builder to proceed with.
Two of the companies build solid/masonry houses, and one builds timber frame houses. Intuitively, we both feel masonry houses are of better quality (which might now just be a prejudice depending on the builder?), but the same gut feeling trusts the timber frame builder most. We naturally also asked around, and it was thanks to recommendations that we found these three/four options.
Each has its pros and cons for us:
Masonry 1: So far, we have mostly been in contact with a seemingly competent sales rep rather than those who will actually build with and for us (site manager, etc.). They did quite a bit of preliminary work—asking about our wishes and having the architect create a special floor plan—but without fully considering the site’s challenges. Unfortunately, we’ve heard from an acquaintance that they are having problems towards the end (crooked walls, many windows cracked during installation, subcontractors not as local as promised, etc.). Two acquaintances also report that costs significantly exceeded the contract price.
Masonry 2: Didn’t put much effort into planning or our wishes; the floor plan pulled from the drawer at the second meeting might actually be okay, but we spent the entire first meeting discussing a plan that had nothing to do with what we wanted. He simply didn’t listen to our ideas. Advantage: He knows the development very well as he has built several houses there. Everyone we spoke with had very positive things to say about the company. Our contact person is co-owner and also site manager, so we already know who we would be dealing with. Since we’ve only had evening appointments, he seemed exhausted and not particularly attentive—maybe just bad timing.
Timber 1: The whole team gives a sincere, open, and professionally sound impression. The company is seemingly located deep in the woods, where the wood is processed onsite. Their architect personally visited our plot. He also pointed out many structural and legal aspects. The design he presented some weeks later incorporated our wishes as much as possible and included some nice ideas. They also directed us to an ongoing site where they are building a single-family house on a slope, which we visited today to get an impression of the finished product.
Timber 2: Like Masonry 1, we have only talked to a sales rep here. It is a smaller prefab home company, but with a house in a show village where we also met for a discussion. The gentleman took almost three hours for us, and we learned a lot about general costs and other aspects. The company offers both pre-configured homes and custom designs. The main advantage here is likely a somewhat lower price while still building more solidly than much of the prefab competition. Acquaintances who searched for a year for a suitable builder, and were quite picky, chose this company and are happy so far.
Regarding how it feels to work with them, we would currently prefer Timber 1. But we are unsure if we can imagine building with wood. My main concerns are faster depreciation and potentially lower long-term value. Is that a misconception? Are there good and bad timber frame builders? Also, the house with this company wouldn’t be cheaper or ready to move into faster than with the masonry builders. The company always points to the excellent indoor climate in a timber house. But is that really noticeable?
This company works with separate offers: one for planning including submitting the building permit / planning permission, then a separate one for construction. So we could at least have them design the house, but does it make sense to take that plan to another builder afterward?
(In general, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled about the offer prices—maybe I was a bit naive. Anyway, all three builders want approximately €500,000 to €550,000 net for a turnkey house with about 160 to 180 sqm (1700 to 1937 sq ft) of living space and a double garage (although one does not even include underground garage construction). That’s actually too much for our budget, and we need to see where we can save €50,000. But that’s not the topic of this post.)
Very long text—my questions:
- How do you assess the quality of such custom timber frame houses?
- How important is a good feeling about the builder to you? Would you weigh that more heavily than (possibly irrational) concerns about the building material?
Thank you very much for your thoughts! We really can’t make progress and appreciate any input.
I don’t know if it makes sense for this thread to fill in the data, but just in case, here are the details.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 791 sqm (8509 sq ft)
Slope: yes
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Building envelope, building line & boundary: see attachment
Number of parking spaces: 2 (double garage planned)
Storeys: 2–2.5 (garden level/partial basement, ground floor, and possibly half attic as a gallery with an open space above the ground floor)
Roof style: gable roof (35–42° specified)
Orientation: open
Maximum heights/limits: ridge height: 6.5 m (21 ft 3 in); full height: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
Other requirements: distance from house to street approx. 4.5 m (15 ft); (site slopes downward from street)
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type:
Unfortunately, we are restricted to a gable roof by the development plan; otherwise, I would have chosen a clear Bauhaus-style form.
Basement, storeys:
Garden level with 1/4 basement and 3/4 sleeping areas. Above, ground floor living spaces and possibly half an attic (gallery with open space and one room).
Number of occupants, ages:
3–4 persons: 44 and 46 years old; son 1.5 years and partner’s 12-year-old daughter (who either stays every other weekend or lives there full-time).
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Because the garage will likely require a basement due to the slope, we planned the basement (storage, possibly workshop) there with access from both the garden side and the house. The garden/basement level itself would contain the utility and laundry room, three bedrooms, and the main bathroom. On the ground floor (level with the street and also accessible from the garage), the living area with kitchen, open living and dining area, pantry/utility room, an office/guest room, and a guest bathroom are planned. An architect from one builder showed us the option of a half attic as a gallery with open ceiling over the living area plus a small room (guest room/office), which I really like.
Office: family use or home office?
Home office will definitely be used partly.
Overnight guests per year:
Hard to say, but a small guest room is planned.
Open or closed architecture:
Rather open in the living area, with an emphasis on views to the unobstructed, sloping greenery (southeast) through high ceilings (no intermediate ceiling there) and large windows.
Open kitchen, kitchen island:
Kitchen can be separated with a sliding door; kitchen island not necessary.
Number of dining seats:
6
Fireplace:
Preferred (or stove), but not mandatory.
Music/speaker wall:
Yes
Balcony, roof terrace:
Balcony on the ground floor facing southeast (preferably partially integrated into the house), south.
Garage, carport:
Garage preferred.
Utility garden, greenhouse:
Partly utility garden, partly space for digging and attractive landscaping, partly play space for our son.
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, including reasons for choices or exclusions:
We envision a KfW55-equivalent house with a (prepared) photovoltaic system.
I want the ground floor designed so that if mobility decreases later, we don’t have to move immediately and can live on one level. Therefore, an extra room on the ground floor is a must, currently for an office/guest room and later convertible to a bedroom. The guest bathroom should also have a shower for the same reason, and somewhere on the ground floor a washing machine connection should be considered.
I tend towards spaciousness and lots of living space with many rooms, but unfortunately, the budget limits that significantly. My partner is more minimalistic and wouldn’t mind if the house wasn’t too large.
JayneCobb schrieb:
Is monolithic masonry with insulated bricks qualitatively different from ETICS? Definitely yes, for two reasons: first, technically, because the insulation materials inside the bricks (with rare exceptions) differ from those typically attached on the outside in ETICS (External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems). And second, more on a personal or “ideological” level, because some builders are convinced—“on principle” (to put it mildly)—that only monolithic construction or ETICS is acceptable, considering the other option completely out of the question.
JayneCobb schrieb:
How would you typically build a garden or basement level—concrete and masonry? When mixing wood and masonry, I would at least try to avoid placing floor panels spanning both materials simultaneously. Even when mixing concrete and masonry, I would try to create a quasi-homogeneous structural system, for example using a framed construction approach or something similar. In general, problems can be minimized by selecting materials with similar compressive strengths. Personally—though expertise doesn’t protect against subjective preferences—I would prefer a stone or concrete basement level, but I also believe that skilled timber framers and other carpenters know what they’re doing. Just because I haven’t done something yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible. ;-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
JayneCobb schrieb:
What makes you committed wood house builders, and how long have you been living in your house?Hm, I find the living atmosphere in a wooden house very pleasant. You never get the feeling of cold or chilly walls. I like the smell of wood, but not that of concrete. For ecological reasons, we chose a wooden house and deliberately looked for a builder who shares our values, for example, someone who uses wood from local sources rather than from Ukraine or elsewhere. There are also differences in wall construction from one wood house to another. We wanted to avoid plastics and similar materials in the walls.
The construction site was always very clean. At most, you just have to sweep away some sawdust. To put it bluntly, our house could simply be dismantled and used as firewood without generating any difficult-to-dispose waste. Recently, I heard a report about the CO2 emissions caused by concrete production, which made me even more confident in our decision.
When only the exterior walls were up, the house already felt cozy and comfortable, and there was this wonderful wood smell everywhere – love it 😎
Furthermore, I have been interested in house building for a long time, and I have always been fascinated by old houses in Scandinavia – almost all wooden houses and often over 100 years old. There are also incredibly beautiful wooden churches there. So it clearly seems to be a proven concept. After a holiday in an old wooden farmhouse in Sweden, the decision was basically made: if we ever build a house, it will be a wooden one. This house was only occasionally occupied and otherwise unheated. When we entered, although it was cold outside, it wasn’t damp inside, just cool. Once the stove was lit, it became immediately comfortable.
For me, both the living experience and the ecological aspect clearly define how I would build a house: wood.
We used concrete very sparingly in our house (the ventilation ducts in the floor were secured with concrete) and otherwise only in the garden. So, as I said: if the house ever has to be torn down, the house itself won’t be a problem to dismantle or dispose of. But the garden might be a different story *laugh*. Due to the sloping site, quite a bit of concrete ended up there.
We have now been living in the house for 1¼ years.
JayneCobb schrieb:
But that means you’re not living there yet and can’t share any practical experience, right? That’s correct, we’re starting at the beginning of 2021, so for now I can only hope that our ideas for using the upper/lower floors and garden will work out. As is often the case in life, both options have their pros and cons, and a decision had to be made.
However, the neighboring houses have been there for decades, and 2 out of 3 neighbors also have a balcony or terrace with stairs on the ground floor. One moved the basement forward and has about 30sqm (320 sq ft) of terrace with a side staircase. Honestly, he hardly uses his garden, and you can tell... The other one has about 12sqm (130 sq ft) balcony with a spiral staircase, and he definitely uses it, having created a nice outdoor seating area with a fire pit.
H
hampshire25 Nov 2020 09:06JayneCobb schrieb:
Yes, I was quite surprised as well and definitely asked about it three times. But I was always told it wouldn’t be a problem. We have been living in the house for 15 months. The foundation and ground slab are made of concrete, no basement, only a technical room accessible from the outside on level -1. So there was no need to build an internal staircase... Inside, we have clay plaster. At the corners and transitions, we made a deliberate cut because it was clear there would be some movement in the house, but no settlement cracks. We will close these cuts next year. It doesn’t bother us.
JayneCobb schrieb:
Firstly, he has no problem “taking over” the basement started with concrete and continuing construction Our build was done the same way: earthworks and concrete work including the slab by a civil engineering contractor, then the timber house on top. The fit was precise to the millimeter and exceeded all expectations, even those of the carpenter, who didn’t have to alter the concrete anywhere to erect the walls—except in one spot, where we moved the kitchen door by 20cm (8 inches).
Climbee schrieb:
As soon as only the exterior walls were up, our house already felt cozy and pleasant, and everywhere you could smell the wood—love it We had this very satisfying feeling too.
A timber house on a concrete foundation works, based on our experience. The companies involved communicated excellently with each other.
hausnrplus2525 Nov 2020 09:24JayneCobb schrieb:
Thanks again for your great contributions!
I will get back to them later; I just uploaded the initial floor plan draft for Holz 1.
We look forward to your comments, thank you! 🙂Very good. As many have already said, wood versus masonry is a matter of personal taste, and in the end, many decide primarily based on the builder rather than the construction method!
By the way, you are looking for a general contractor (GC), not a developer, since you are buying the plot and having the house built yourselves rather than purchasing everything as a package.
You have created posts about the floor plan; you could also create one about financing. Then it’s best to request quotes based on the floor plan that fits you about 90-95% from your two preferred builders! After that, carefully compare the scope of work and the offers themselves—using a classic Excel table listing what is included at what price. For example, achieving KfW (or similar energy efficiency program) standards is not always the same for wood versus solid construction—what do you want? Repayment subsidies can be attractive, so consider including that if desired.
Then check with your bank what is feasible.
You won’t simply save $50k by building! Definitely not. Not even by choosing different finishes, adjusting a couple of walls, or doing some work yourself. And on all offers, there is always a significant extra cost for things like permits/planning permissions, kitchen, fittings, landscaping, and so on.
Therefore, get comparable offers, contact your bank, and then make your choice or replan the house.
Good luck!
H
hampshire25 Nov 2020 09:25hausnrplus25 schrieb:
You won’t save 50k easily during construction! Definitely not.On the other hand, spending an extra 50k can happen just as quickly.Similar topics