Can you do a contemporary self-build on a budget?

[Kelvin]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

 

 

We got green larch direct from the mill for about 1/3 russwood prices.

 

 

You’ve missed my point. My point was not about how cheaply something can be done, it was about if you want to achieve a particular look then there’s quite likely a cost associated with it. There are loads of houses and extensions around us that are wood clad and all bar two look crap to me as the cladding has weathered exactly the way cladding weathers with hardly any weathering in the protected areas, silvered in the centre and stained at the bottom. The two fully clad houses the cladding has weathered completely differently on each elevation as you might expect to happen and one if them has black marks on every fixing point. On one of the houses I looked at the battens have failed and the cladding is coming off the walls after 15 years.
 

We had a very particular set of criteria for the cladding and after looking at all manner of ways to do it we concluded that the options were the SiOO:X treated Russwood system or Adodo. The Abodo was too dear albeit it’s a beautiful wood and I might use it for the media wall. In terms cost we went with the full Russwood system of thermopine battens, Sihga screws, the Kompefix compensation strip, and the SiOO:X treatment. All of that was dearer than the cladding. We could have done it for less than half the cost we paid but we wouldn’t have achieved the look we wanted. We’ll find out about the longevity. 

 

Building a house, where money isn’t unlimited, is series of competing compromises between structural, serviceability, and aesthetic. The structural stuff is what it is a lot of the time as the ground dictates what you need to do. The other two comes down to choices that you make based on your preferences or priorities. 

Edited June 18 by Kelvin

[JohnMo]

7 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

You’ve missed my point. My point was not about how cheaply something can be done, it was about if you want to achieve a particular look then there’s quite likely a cost associated with it. There are loads of houses and extensions around us that are wood clad and all bar two look crap to me as the cladding has weathered exactly the way cladding weathers with hardly any weathering in the protected areas, silvered in the centre and stained at the bottom. The two fully clad houses the cladding has weathered completely differently on each elevation as you might expect to happen and one if them has black marks on every fixing point. On one of the houses I looked at the battens have failed and the cladding is coming off the walls after 15 years.
 

We had a very particular set of criteria for the cladding and after looking at all manner of ways to do it we concluded that the options were the SiOO:X treated Russwood system or Adodo. The Abodo was too dear albeit it’s a beautiful wood and I might use it for the media wall. In terms cost we went with the full Russwood system of thermopine battens, Sihga screws, the Kompefix compensation strip, and the SiOO:X treatment. All of that was dearer than the cladding. We could have done it for less than half the cost we paid but we wouldn’t have achieved the look we wanted. We’ll find out about the longevity. 

 

Building a house, where money isn’t unlimited, is series of competing compromises between structural, serviceability, and aesthetic. The structural stuff is what it is a lot of the time as the ground dictates what you need to do. The other two comes down to choices that you make based on your preferences or priorities. 

You obviously wanted a silvered weathered look - I wanted the exact opposite. Buying green wood allowed me plenty of time to do the cladding without getting the weathered look. Ours is now oiled to protect it from weathering. All stainless fixings etc.

 

I could have gone to Russwood to get exactly the same profile with trees from the same forest. I didn't want kiln dried, most of my wood came in 5.4m lengths, couldn't get that from Russwood (at the time), even if I wanted, the trees were cut specifically for me from a wood 20 miles from the house.

 

I took your point it wasn't missed, just explaining a different way around things and keeping inside a £1500 m2 budget.

[Kelvin]

 We didn’t want the silvered weathered look. Well we did in the beginning but we liked the very light pale golden colour the natural SiOO:X treatment achieves. 
 

They do a coloured version of it that achieves a light grey and mid grey for the immediate weathered silvered look. 

Edited June 18 by Kelvin

[BotusBuild]

To OP:

Using the Quality/Time/Cost triumvirate, we are letting time run away with us to keep quality and cost in control. We are doing as much of the build ourselves. So far, I have forked out for the following work to be carried out - groundworks, steel frame (one wall of house, one part of roof and balcony), concrete pours, windows, GRP roof, and electrics.

 

So far, it's taken 4.5 years on a part time (weekends and holidays basis). We are weathertight and in first fix phase. I'm about to start working on it more full time having been made redundant and realistically we think about another 9-12 months.

 

Just been catching up on finances and the current "already spent + forecast future costs" show a per square metre cost of approx £1200. (£1900 if you include cost of plot)

 

So, it can be done.

[JohnMo]

13 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

So far, it's taken 4.5 years on a part time

You must be tired? That's a long build. But your not the only one here.

 

I took time away from work so worked full time - I'm older and was quite happy to take a break from the daily grind.

 

 

[BotusBuild]

6 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

You must be tired?

Knackered - the body is complaining 🙂

 

Redundancy at 60 is a b1tch - combined with a bunch of other situations, it is time to focus on the new house

 

25 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

per square metre cost of approx £1200.

Just realised that includes VAT, so once reclaimed that figure will come down a little.

[Pocster]

17 hours ago, Thorfun said:

Time, quality, cost. 
 

you can have two of the three. So costs can be low and assuming you don’t want to compromise on quality it’ll just take you a long time to do! 
 

@nod is your man for self-building for low prices but he is in the trade. 

Nonsense ! I have all 3

 

It took a lot of time 

It is high quality 

It cost a lot of money

 

Jackpot ! 

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, BotusBuild said:

So far, it's taken 4.5 years on a part time (weekends and holidays basis).

You’ve just began ; only another 5 yrs to ago ..

[Crofter]

13 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Design of house really makes very little difference to build cost

I'm not sure about that. It's easy to add things like dormers, integrated garage, complex shapes etc which all drive up the cost significantly. 

Stick to a simple box with a favourite volume to surface area ratio.

[JohnMo]

22 hours ago, JohnMo said:

efficiency of design and how you build it is where cost savings come from.

 

8 hours ago, Crofter said:

I'm not sure about that. It's easy to add things like dormers, integrated garage, complex shapes etc which all drive up the cost significantly. 

Stick to a simple box with a favourite volume to surface area ratio.

By doing all that, you could be adding inefficiencies to the design. Hence cost more to build. Using none standard doors can double the cost of doors for example.

 

A simple cube is the most efficient from a building perspective you need way less insulation, you have less area to make airtight etc. is that what the OP wants?

 

What I am trying to say is two very similar designs, one can cost lots to build or the other comparatively less, depending on how they are designed to be built.

[Crofter]

1 minute ago, JohnMo said:

 

By doing all that, you could be adding inefficiencies to the design. Hence cost more to build. Using none standard doors can double the cost of doors for example.

 

A simple cube is the most efficient from a building perspective you need way less insulation, you have less area to make airtight etc. is that what the OP wants?

 

What I am trying to say is two very similar designs, one can cost lots to build or the other comparatively less, depending on how they are designed to be built.

I think we're actually in agreement. It's both the design (shape, features) and build method that contribute to cost.

Your point about doors is a good example. Another one would be ceiling height, or anything else where going beyond standard dimensions could lead to a lot of waste.

[joe90]

2 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

A simple cube is the most efficient from a building perspective you need way less insulation, you have less area to make airtight etc.

I agree, mine was 10m x 12m, longest side facing South with bifolds and conservatory, North side smaller windows, not quite passive but close, needed very little heat input and easy to build.

[garrymartin]

Nothing wrong with simple forms 😉 Extra points for simple forms and Passivhaus 🤣

[Kelvin]

There’s a balance to strike between building a square box with few windows and building a completely curved building full of glass. I don’t watch Grand Designs much but I was also impressed with the folk that built really interesting looking buildings that broke convention. 

[G and J]

1 hour ago, Kelvin said:

There’s a balance to strike between building a square box with few windows and building a completely curved building full of glass. I don’t watch Grand Designs much but I was also impressed with the folk that built really interesting looking buildings that broke convention. 

It’s a personal preference, but I’d always choose to hear ‘new house? Really?’ from a passer by than ‘wow, that looks space age’.

 

A good few of the grand designs buildings remind me of the front of Asdas.  😞

[Kelvin]

Sure but architecture is more than building square boxes. 

[G and J]

1 minute ago, Kelvin said:

Sure but architecture is more than building square boxes. 

Granted.  I think in public buildings bold statements and innovative design can really lift an area.  However I wonder how many of the more eye poking designs one sees on the tele are driven more by the ‘look at me’ ethic than the drive to improve the general look and feel of a locale.  
 

I want our house to be brilliant to live in, but I only need two people (plus a small dog) to love it.  I’m quite happy if (in time) no one else notices. 
 

On the practical side I want it boringly cost effective to build and run.  No alarms and no surprises……please.

[Kelvin]

That’s bound to be the case with some folk but for many others it won’t be so sweeping generalisations have no place in such a debate. Look at the thread where the LPA is forcing them to build a bungalow like all the others in the street with no deviation from the norm. Also look at all the new housing estates where they are building more or less exactly the same design which is all driven by profit. You can apply the boring it just has to work design principle to everything in life but it would be a pretty boring World to live in. 

[G and J]

Have you watched Grand Designs : The street series (I think it’s called). What a wow of a set of disparate designs, but I love the idea of enabling self building to be accessible to more peeps. 

[G and J]

Actually, I think I should recuse myself for being unbelievably off topic. 
 

Sorry!

[Pocster]

Building underground simplifies things …. 🙄😆🤣

[Kelvin]

1 minute ago, Pocster said:

Building underground simplifies things …. 🙄😆🤣

😂 We would have loved to have done that. Our plot would have been a great site for such a design. Our initial rough drawing was a small longhouse as a top storey so the bit you see and the next two floors beneath it buried in the hill with the bottom floor extending forward into the site. Inspired by the Grand Design couple that spent £100k digging the hole in the side of the hill. 
 

We ruled it out because the cost/risk profile was too high for us, I couldn’t find a groundswork company that had done anything like it up here and we were advised it would be hard to get through planning. Two long rectangles it was then 😂 

[Pocster]

Just now, Kelvin said:

😂 We would have loved to have done that. Our plot would have been a great site for such a design. Our initial rough drawing was a small longhouse as a top storey so the bit you see and the next two floors beneath it buried in the hill with the bottom floor extending forward into the site. Inspired by the Grand Design couple that spent £100k digging the hole in the side of the hill. 
 

We ruled it out because the cost/risk profile was too high for us, I couldn’t find a groundswork company that had done anything like it up here and we were advised it would be hard to get through planning. Two long rectangles it was then 😂 

Nah !

 

You find a man with a 30 tonne digger and get him to do it . You then do the groundwork / steels / concrete etc. yourself . Piece of piss …… ok , maybe not .

I was getting quotes just to dig the hole ranging from 7k to 100k ! . In the end 30k is where I settled on .

Planning will love it ! It’s ‘eco’ , can’t object to something no one can see .

Go on - you only live once . I’ll help you (expletive deleted) it up - I mean advise you . 

[G and J]

18 minutes ago, Pocster said:

Nah !

 

You find a man with a 30 tonne digger and get him to do it . You then do the groundwork / steels / concrete etc. yourself . Piece of piss …… ok , maybe not .

I was getting quotes just to dig the hole ranging from 7k to 100k ! . In the end 30k is where I settled on .

Planning will love it ! It’s ‘eco’ , can’t object to something no one can see .

Go on - you only live once . I’ll help you (expletive deleted) it up - I mean advise you . 

Given complete free range I’d have had a basement, but we didn’t actually need the space; I’d probably hardly ever use that beloved full sized snooker table, or the drop down scalextric track above it; it would probably badly bust our budget; and we’re building on very sandy soil v close to neighbours 100+ year old foundation free crumbling, timber frame houses.

 

I can dream.  

[Pocster]

12 minutes ago, G and J said:

Given complete free range I’d have had a basement, but we didn’t actually need the space; I’d probably hardly ever use that beloved full sized snooker table, or the drop down scalextric track above it; it would probably badly bust our budget; and we’re building on very sandy soil v close to neighbours 100+ year old foundation free crumbling, timber frame houses.

 

I can dream.  

Space always finds a use .

A gym , that cinema type lounge , swimming pool etc etc ( ignoring budget of course )

My only regret was only going 1 level underground in hind sight I would have gone 2 levels underground. But finances and ‘risk’ were against me .

Edited June 19 by Pocster