Jump to content
  • entries
    76
  • comments
    241
  • views
    38798

Space Efficient House Means Cash Efficient Budget

Ferdinand

Entry posted by Ferdinand

2670 views

 Share

Having seen and debated Calvinmiddle's 120 square metre 2 bedroom bungalow, I was musing on how large a dwelling actually needs to be in floor area - intending no particular critique of Calvin's decisions here.

In these days of £1500 per square meter build costs and soaring energy prices, should we take Occam's Razor to all those (possibly) extra bits we are adding to our self-builds? Rather than learning creating larger rooms and learning to do that one extra building trade ourselves, to save budget, is it possible to make different decisions and simply build less house instead?

Let me bring some personal experience to open a conversation about efficient use of space, as I think I have a good example of a well-designed and well laid out 2 bed bungalow, on quite a difficult site. Here is an aerial view and site plan, which is fairly tight, and built to the boundary on the North and West sides, preventing insertion of windows in those walls.

1bsv-site-plot.jpg 

The history is that in 1960 this was a cowshed. In 1970 it became an architect's studio. By the 1990s the architect had moved out, and it was extended and became a 2 bed studio (literally) bungalow.

I don't, unfortunately, have a formal floor plan to hand, short of scanning in an architect's drawing, but the total floor area is 70 sqm, or 750 square feet, measured by adding up the floor areas of each room. So here is a very rough sketch plan from my log book:

1bsv-sketchplan-490.jpg 

Now 70 sqm is not very much area to most of us; but the place is surprisingly spacious, and everyone who has lived there loves it. This is the accommodation in detail, with brief notes:

  • Entrance Hall: 3'11 x 11'11 (1.18m x 3.62m)
  • Kitchen: 11'11 x 10'6 (3.64m x 3.19m). Space for dining table.
  • Lounge: 14'8 x 14'9 (4.46m x 4.48m). Velux roof lights.
  • Master Bedroom 1: 14'6 x 11'4 (4.42m x 3.45m).
  • Bedroom 2: 10'4 x 11'9 (3.16m x 3.59m).
  • Inner Hall: 3'10 x 7'6 (1.16m x 2.29m). Boiler/washer cupboard. Cloak cupboard.
  • Shower Room: 6'7 x 6'9 (2.00m x 2.05m) plus 4'0 x 3'0 (1.23m x 0.92m). Velux roof light. Walk-in shower.

If I compare that with the "London Space Standard", which is the document about suggested reasonable minimum house sizes that politicians are currently rabbiting on about, we are quite close to the recommended minimum areas for 2 bed single storey homes:

  • Space required for 2 bed 2 person single storey dwelling = 61 sqm.
  • Space required for 2 bed 3 person single storey dwelling = 70 sqm.
  • Space required for 2 bed 4 person single storey dwelling = 74 sqm.

The document, which is based on mapping out what furniture is needed for the number of people in each room, is well worth a read for self-builders wanting to explore how layouts can be organised.

Where then can self-builders save on space, and budget?

I'd suggest the design of my bungalow is efficient in these areas, and that two ideas to use are double use of space, and illusion to make spaces feel larger than is the case:

  • Saving on circulation space - ie corridors and hallways. The Inner Hall and Entrance Hall total around 4.6 sqm, which is under 6% of total floor space. Since there is no wall between the entrance hall and the kitchen, part of that is also perceived to be part of a larger kitchen/dining area.
  • The space budget is spent where most time is spent - the lounge, at 20sqm, is generous and square, with what amounts to a glass wall non the south side, and no dark corners due to Velux roof windows at the north side.
  • A perception of space is helped by middling high cathedral ceilings (13ft) in the principal rooms.

There are mistakes as well - in this case the lounge is a little to open to view by passers by on the pavement if they look in a particular direction.

What have you done well or badly in your own project? How much dedicated circulation space did you create?

And there's a whole conversation to have about changes in circulation space from early times (no corridors) to 20C (corridors to avoid draughts) to 21C (no corridors since doors are now draught proof). I'll start a conversation about that another time.

 Share

13 Comments

Recommended Comments

Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

stones
14 Jul 2014 03:28 PM

It is an interesting debate. We all crave space and comfort, but could all live comfortably (in the sense of being warm, dry and healthy) in much smaller homes. Having just returned from holiday in a 60m2 two bed cottage, it puts need and want into perspective. The house we stayed in was great but I think would feel cramped in the long term (with the kids at home anyway), but a lot of that feeling is based on the comparison with what we have now.

Having built a couple of circa 200m2 homes, for our current home we decided to downsize on the grounds we rarely used all of the space we had and to reduce running costs. At 130m2 our house comfortably accommodates 3 bedrooms, large en-suite, utility and a 58m2 kitchen/dining/living area. Vaulted ceilings in the living space and master bed give a real feeling of space which in my view is far better than a little extra floor space. We sit in 1/2 an acre of ground with open views to fields, trees and hills so don't have any feeling of being hemmed in. We gave up the spare bedroom as it was rarely used, our thinking being it would be cheaper to pay for someone to stay in a local B&B rather than build a room that is only used a few times a year. 

House values are an issue (and the traditional view that large houses with many bedrooms are worth more) but I actually think there is a demand for houses with a good amount of living space and only 2 or 3 bedrooms, especially for those with no children / retirees. 5 and 6 bed houses are perhaps great for families but just end up being too large when the kids fly the coop.

One could of course go to extremes and take a 30' x 10' mobile home layout as a space efficient blue-print, the use of built on furniture and clever storage could make a real impact. SciFi films sometimes show the future of housing as glorified student type accommodation, and from a certain perspective, there is nothing wrong with such living. Whether you would want to spend your whole life in such a small space is however a different matter. I suspect that future generations will have to face such a reality in order to get a roof over their head if they are building themselves or buying from a developer. 

J

Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

ProDave
14 Jul 2014 07:41 PM

This is an interesting discussion, one which I often have with SWMBO!!!!

Up here in Scotland, there is a definite definition of what constitutes a "mobile home" It clearly states a "mobile home" does not have to be on wheels, but must be limited to external dimensions of 16.288 Metres by 6.096 Metres apost-23766-0-53853500-1405363465_thumb.jpgnd a ceiling height of no more than a shade over 3 Metres. and it must be transportable in no more than 2 sections.

So that gives you a total external area of just about 100 square metres. Internal floor area depends on your wall thickness which depends on how much insulation you put in.

Now the big thing about building something that falls in this "mobile home" definition is that it is totally exempt from building control. So it will save you over £1K in building warrant fees, and will probably leave you free to do some things not allowed under a normal controlled building. For instance you won't have to build in all the disabled features, you can have your switches and sockets at any height you please, doorways need not be as wide, etc etc. Not to mention it saves you the time and cost involved preparing all the drawings for a building warrant and all the structural calculations, it saves time and there is no need for inspection visits.

I have tried to persuade SWMBO that we could build our house to this definition. It would be smaller than we currently want, and would therefore need more in the way of "garden outbuildings" to give extra storage space and work space. But SWMBO does not want to live in a bungalow, she wants to go upstairs to bed, so that rules it out for us.

The other problem with this approach is the size restrictions forces you into a long thin building (think twin unit mobile home) which would struggle to fit on our site, but might suit some sites.

Anyway that's a long pre amble to set the scene. a while back I roughed out a possible house layout based on that restriction and came up with this:


post-23766-0-53853500-1405363465_thumb.jpg


It's very much a rough idea, no details, not even window positions. But what I was trying to achieve was an efficient layout for a 2 bedroom property with en-suite to the master bedroom. There is a large lounge / dining / kitchen area that one leg can be partitioned off with folding doors to give a separate living room, or an occasional third guest bedroom.

The utility room is a bit cunning. there's not a lot of space, so it joins to the corridor with two sliding pocket doors. When slid back the utility expands into the corridor space giving room to do the ironing etc, yet becomes compact and tidy with the doors slid shut.

I am quite certain that if building an entirely timber passive house build along the lines of a Viking house or similar, that it's quite a simple matter to build in in two sections that could be unbolted and separated if you really wanted to. The bottom of my picture shows a very rough idea of how the roof trusses would work in 2 parts and allow the building to separate and thus comply with being "mobile". I doubt that anyone would ever ask you to prove it, but you could show them where the building separates if they question it.

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

Nickfromwales
14 Jul 2014 09:43 PM

Dave, you definitely were a static caravan in your last life. :)
Out of curiosity and admiration of your ingenuity in creating a Goerge Clarke special here, why ( if I'm seeing right ) have you given this space a cloakroom, AND master bathroom ?!
You could relocate the door into the living space and then have a corridor studio kitchen to the left ( as you enter ). I seriously don't think this setup needs 3 toilets tbh. The areas dedicated to cloak and utility should all be dedicated to kitchenette space with all the appliances tucked in there as anyone would expect of such a compact arrangement. 
All said though, this shows how compact a unit you could have for guest quarters, and a converted static would be great for this, a timber frame unit may not be so easily ignored by the Feds. Unless your a "traveler" of course, and then you can do what the f@@@ you like. :-@
Also, I think the ensuite area would be better off as wardrobe space / storage as this unit really could survive happily with one master bathroom me thinks :-)
Regards, nick. 

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

ProDave14 Jul 2014 10:18 PM

I did say it was just a quick first pass.

The "specification" was the main bathroom must have a bath AND a separate decent sized shower. I couldn't work out how to get a loo in there as well, so put the loo as a separate room, close to the front door for easy access from outside. So only two loos.

Just because it legally qualifies as a "mobile home" by virtue of the fact it could be split in two and craned onto two low loaders, does not mean it will ever move or ever need to move.

I got the idea from a spell working for some builders up here that were doing just this, building this sort of well insulated portable building and putting them on residential park home sites. One of them that I wired was built as one unit and could not be divided in two without the use of a chainsaw, though they stuck a length of beading the whole length of the ceiling to make it look like it was a joint line.

If I ever did it, I would at least make the frame so it could be unbolted into to parts.

There might also be problems if you ever tried to sell a building like this. When the buyers solicitor asks for the completion certificate for example. And that might impact on mortgageability, not that that would concern me, but might bother a future buyer.

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:
Nickfromwales
14 Jul 2014 10:37 PM

I see, bath, shower and basin ;)
Still think I'd do away with the cloakroom, slide that all down and get a wc in the master using the sliding doors on that rather than the utility. 
Shower to side, sink and wc to middle on back wall and bath on end?

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:
ferdinand
15 Jul 2014 09:26 AM

@ProDave

Interesting.

For your double-park-home the obvious thing would perhaps be a 2-module Portakabin which are designed to link together and are irc built on site in one day.

Lightweight pitched roofs work. The bungalow in this article used to have one put on top when the experimental 1971 flat roof reached the end of the experiment. It is made of fibreglass.

1bsv-fibreglass-roof.jpg

I still have a pile of those white bricks from 1970 outside the kitchen window in my newly bought house, 'just in case'. Yes, we have used some over the years.

I'm playing with similar-ish layouts on a larger scale for a passive version of my studio bungalow above. For me one key dimension is 100sqm gross internal area (excludes outside walls), which is the trigger point for the CiL tax. Doesn't apply to self-build self-occupier (allegedly) but I'm looking at build-to-let.

Ferdinand

 

Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:
stones
15 Jul 2014 04:30 PM
[Ed: The point re CiL startnig at 100sqm was actually wrong for new build, and is now moot as self-build is exempt from CiL]

A very interesting point re CiL. Is that country wide or just your local area. That would seem a very compelling reason to keep a build below 100m2 if the contribution was going to be excessive. Provision of a garden room / studio / study etc in lieu of house floor space or a garage with guest accommodation built over it (under permitted development) may resolve some of the limitations, but one assumes you would be subject to VAT on such work and this may be more than the CiL.


Other than the cost of a building warrant, the main savings going down the mobile home route would appear to be structural engineering costs. Can we assume these are 3-4% (either hidden or upfront) or higher? Is the saving worth the restrictions on the size you can build and therefore layout? Value wise, such properties always appear to be worth less than an equivalent house. Not an issue of you do not intend ever moving but an individuals circumstances can quickly change. 

I like the idea of constructing offsite in a dry factory environment, although the restrictions of road haulage regarding maximum height and width dimensions could again have a real impact on what you could construct and still fall within the definition of a mobile home. 

J

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:ferdinand

15 Jul 2014 05:54 PM

In England it is LPA by LPA. Planning Resource have a summary here.

CiL may be England only :-).

My LPA doesn't do CIL (yet), but in future I may wish to do something similar elsewhere.

Ferdinand

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

ferdinand
16 Jul 2014 09:15 AM

The utility room door trick is quite like one I plan to discuss used in my bungalow where the kitchen table can have one side up against the path to the lounge, so the space that would be dedicated to somewhere to move the chairs back into is circulation space the 99% of the time persons 3 and 4 aren't there, eating.

Also used in the Aldington House I mentioned in the last post :-). See:
 



F

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

MattTweddell
24 Jul 2014 09:17 PM

Could always use one of those toilets that has the sink built in to the top of the cistern, then the used water goes into the cistern to be used for flushing?

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:
Crofter
27 Jul 2014 11:04 AM

Small is beautiful- or at least that's what I keep telling myself as a redraw my own plans endlessly.
On paper, I managed to squeeze a bedroom, en suite, and kitchen/diner/living space into less than 30m2. Then I visited a friend's 30m2 gym and was horrified by how it would actually feel.

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Ferdinand

A Comment reproduced from the orginal copy of this blog post:

ProDave
02 Aug 2014 10:48 AM

Crofter, my Static caravan has a living room, kitchen, diner, two bedrooms a toilet and shower room in 28 square metres, so it can be done. But everything is smaller than you would really like and there's precious little storage space anywhere.

With the size of your build, I would look up the English definition of "mobile home" (I believe it may be a little larger than the Scottish definition) so it's very likely your build could be made to fit within that and so avoid building control?

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Crofter

Thanks for reviving this thread.

Just for the record, my eventual design was 42m2 net internal floor space, on a footprint of about 52 m2. I think for a one bedroom dwelling it will feel spacious enough. I won't be cramming it full of bulky furniture.

 

For an object lesson in living in small spaces, it is remarkable how comfortable you can be aboard a boat. I had a mate who lived on a pretty small wooden yacht for a couple of years. The total floor area where he could stand up was probably less than one square metre. Everything has to serve two purposes, and it does force you to be ruthless with what you regard as 'essential'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...