Are there any standard measurements that are more economical to adhere to when it comes to self-designed houses? Regarding both the foundation and truss sizes, what I mean is; are there proportions (W x L) of houses that are more or less economical to manufacture and build?
Good to know when you're sketching...
Does anyone know?
Good to know when you're sketching...
Does anyone know?
No direct standard measurements, but a house without angles/extensions, simple roof construction, few windows/doors, etc. will of course be easier to build and thereby cheaper. Look at the websites of house manufacturers characterized by a "low price" to get an idea of the measurements.
Thank you for your reply ByggaNytt, but it's actually based on the fact that I've already looked into this that I'm asking...
There is indeed some difference. Often you see a width of living space of 9m and a length of about 14. But not always... and that's why I was wondering. Like: Does something "dramatic" happen with the building economy if you increase the width to 10 meters? I believe I have understood that it is more economical to increase living space by increasing the length rather than the width of a house. That's why I was wondering if there is a "golden standard" that utilizes resources in the best way.
One more thing: "Load-bearing wall" across the central length of the house, hjärtmur(?), seems very arbitrary if you look at the cheaper house models. Some have it, others don't. Could it have to do with the choice of foundation perhaps... Question: Is it important from a building economic perspective that it's there?
Oh, what stupid questions you probably think... but if you don't ask, you don't learn...
There is indeed some difference. Often you see a width of living space of 9m and a length of about 14. But not always... and that's why I was wondering. Like: Does something "dramatic" happen with the building economy if you increase the width to 10 meters? I believe I have understood that it is more economical to increase living space by increasing the length rather than the width of a house. That's why I was wondering if there is a "golden standard" that utilizes resources in the best way.
One more thing: "Load-bearing wall" across the central length of the house, hjärtmur(?), seems very arbitrary if you look at the cheaper house models. Some have it, others don't. Could it have to do with the choice of foundation perhaps... Question: Is it important from a building economic perspective that it's there?
Oh, what stupid questions you probably think... but if you don't ask, you don't learn...
It depends on how you plan to build. We who build ourselves and have done everything, including nailing trusses, realize that a center wall along the entire length of the house is there for the simple reason that timber is not longer than 5 meters (common with lengths of 4.5 m, hence your nine meters) and that it is not okay to have too large spans with regular wooden joists before you end up with glulam and steel beams - this is expensive for the individual, but perhaps not for a house company that has large discounts. Extensions that involve valley gutters on the roof are both time and material-consuming. Having an extension that protrudes from the building body in two levels so that the trusses cross each other and need to be alternated is cheaper if the house is shaped like a cross, i.e., if the extension is in both directions, because then the trusses in each part can be built "independently" of each other without glulam or steel beams. If you have the extension in only one direction, the trusses in the direction without the extension are half and hang in the air=must be supported by a beam. Similarly, it becomes easier if the ridge of the extension and the main building is at the same level and not with, for example, a 50 cm difference. Yes, and then you should think about not cutting too many studs, especially on the gables, with windows... well, there are simply many aspects. Check previous threads under lösvirke. When we took our self-drawn plan to the constructor, he said nice house but it's not possible to build... but of course, it was possible, but we have a huge glulam beam and two steel beams because we didn't follow the above.
When I draw new designs, I always think about choosing dimensions that align well with the available building materials, especially sheets, like gypsum etc. Normally, sheets are 90 or 120 cm wide. This applies generally; look at the materials available and adapt according to them, not the other way around.
Regarding the wet room/s, keep in mind the water and drainage that should also be in the kitchen. Arrange them together so you can use the same pipes. I have a 1 1/2 with a basement, and in the basement, I have a central unit with outgoing pipes leading up to the kitchen, which is directly above, and also to the bathroom, which is one step up.
I don't know if you've read the thread about building a house for 650,000 SEK with stick-built construction, but it mentions another interesting point that turned out to be right for us by chance, namely having the electrical panel centrally located. This reduces the costs for pipes and cables. Often you see utility rooms/technical rooms—where the panel is usually located in an outer corner of the house. As mentioned, there are certainly many ways to build inexpensively—but you also have to live there, so you have to find the golden middle way