# most cost effective house plan



## vsheetz (Sep 28, 2008)

Two story retangular box. The money is in the foundation and the roof. IMHO...


----------



## TitaniumVT (Nov 27, 2009)

Not sure why 1.5 stories would be more economical than a 2 story building (other than the cost savings of 1/2 walls worth of material), but here are a few more suggested guidelines:

1. having a building width and length that's divisible evenly by 4' is the most economical sizing (e.g., 20ft, 24ft, 36ft, etc.) Most sheathing materials (drywall, plywood, osb, etc.) come in 4'x8' sheets, so you're paying for the material irrespective of whether you use it all. Having exterior wall dimensions in 4ft increments allows you to more fully use the materials while minimizing waste and cutting, and maximizing cost per sq ft.

2. Exterior walls with fewer bends are cheaper to build, since the concrete forming, sheathing, siding, etc. is all less labor intensive. So a plan that's a perfect square or rectangle is cheaper to build than one that is L, M, Z or Y shaped.

3. As a rule, smaller houses are more expensive to build per sq ft than larger ones - that's because many of the fixed costs disproportionally impact the cost per sq ft on smaller homes. Air, drywall, lumber and paint are cheap. Bigger rooms don't cost you proportionately as much, but add proportionately to the value of your house. The guidance I've heard from experienced owner builders is "build as big as you can afford to"

4. Adding living space over a garage is cheap, since the foundation's already poured, and the roof doesn't cost any more. You're really just paying for materials and labor for one more floor and walls.

5. Generalizing number 4, two story structures are cheaper per sq ft than single story structures. The only incremental expense to add the second floor is the cost of the walls and floor - everything else (e.g., roof, ceiling, foundation, etc.) you'd need to have to support the first floor anyway.

6. Cost is not just a function of size. Materials, design complexity, etc. all play a big role in the final build cost.

I'm sure there are a bunch of other ideas that will come to me if I sit down and think about it, but hopefully this is a good list of thoughts to get you started.


----------



## ugabulldog (Oct 16, 2006)

thanks for the replies......however, if the house is only 1500 sq. ft. and I build a two story, (which would have as much sq. ft. on the second floor as on the first) I would think the house would look dumb with a small "footprint" and tall structure...??? plus I would want the master on first which would eliminate the two story option on a 1500 sq. ft.......btw....This 1.5 story would not have half walls? but a steep roof pitch with extra sq. ft. in attic space


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Where are you located ?
Myself I'd never want another house without a basement

Actually 2' increments can be just as cost effective
Since the "extra" 2' can be used on the other side(s)


----------



## vsheetz (Sep 28, 2008)

My mother had a house once as you describe - about 1500' and 1.5 floors via peaked roof - upstairs had two decent sized bedrooms at either end with hall between them - in the hall was the stairway landing, full bath on one side ,and utilities room/area on the other side - and downstairs was the master bedroom, living and eat-in kitchen. The downstairs bath was compartmented (toilet & vanity / tub-shower vanity) and accessaable from the hall and from the master bedroom both.


----------



## Red Squirrel (Jun 29, 2009)

If you are building go with a full size basement, or at least a split level (half basement, half crawlspace). I can't see it costing that much more to dig deeper and in the end you'll have a better foundation and it will also sell for more. The basement (or lack of) can be a deal breaker for lot of people.


----------



## pyper (Jul 1, 2009)

Given the OP's user name, he might be in the south. Basements are really rare in the south -- it might be more difficult to find a builder who has experience putting them in. But they can be nice. You have to air condition them (in the deep south) though, to take the humidity out, or you'll have mold problems.


----------



## rjniles (Feb 5, 2007)

pyper said:


> Given the OP's user name, he might be in the south. Basements are really rare in the south -- it might be more difficult to find a builder who has experience putting them in. But they can be nice. You have to air condition them (in the deep south) though, to take the humidity out, or you'll have mold problems.


In coastal South Carolina, we have a name for basements:

Swimming Pools


----------



## ugabulldog (Oct 16, 2006)

yes, i am in South carolina, will be building in rural Ga, not looking to do a basement...._I am just trying to figure out if it is really that much of a cost savings to build a 1.5 story over a ranch,.....there is the extra cost of stairs, guess that is the only added cost, what do you think would be the actual cost savings on 1500 sq. ft.....any guesses???....btw just to reinterate, I am the builder...._


----------



## RegeSullivan (Dec 8, 2006)

When you ask what is the "*most cost effective house plan*" do you want the resale to be considered? If so the ranch might end up being the most cost effective build. In an area with plenty of retirees a ranch might bring a higher price than a split or two story. Personally my thought about a split is it is the worst of both worlds. At my age, I would definitely go with a ranch even if it was more cost effective to go split or two story. Without taking resale into consideration there is no question a two story give you the most sq. ft. for the buck and it will be the most economical to heat and cool.

Rege


----------



## ugabulldog (Oct 16, 2006)

RegeSullivan said:


> When you ask what is the "*most cost effective house plan*" do you want the resale to be considered? If so the ranch might end up being the most cost effective build. In an area with plenty of retirees a ranch might bring a higher price than a split or two story. Personally my thought about a split is it is the worst of both worlds. At my age, I would definitely go with a ranch even if it was more cost effective to go split or two story. Without taking resale into consideration there is no question a two story give you the most sq. ft. for the buck and it will be the most economical to heat and cool.
> 
> Rege


 
Good points....I will not be taking resale into acoount as I plan on dying in this home (not to sound morbid) but I would also prefer the convience of a ranch, as one of the upstairs rooms would be used as office, I guess that is what i am trying to figure out, would cost savings offset..... I don't plan on adding gutters which would eliminate some additional savings of 1.5 stories....not sure there is a clear cut answer without actually comparing two plans and doing a materials, labor 'takeoff'.


----------



## RegeSullivan (Dec 8, 2006)

Well this changes things. You will not know the answer until your final days... If your plans are to stay in the house as long as you can you would need to know your state of your health to know which will be most cost effective for you. If you can't do the stairs in the final 5, 10 or 15 years of your life at least a portion of a two story or split will be unusable and therefor a complete waste of money at that time. If you go with a ranch you will more likely have access to the entire house for the longest time. Consider using all 36" doors also. No one likes to think wheel chairs or walkers but mobility in a chair or with a walker is better not having that mobility. Bathrooms need to be well thought out too. A large curb-less shower could make a big difference at some point.

Rege


----------

