House Construction - Best Value Dimensions

[Beltzington]

Getting close to finalizing building plans for a home we are building on some vacation/retirement property we have owned for several years. I have asked allot of questions on this and other forums and am always grateful for the shared knowledge. Before I ask the designer to finalize our floor plans into engineering drawings I would like a sanity check.

Exterior dimensions will be 28' W and 35' L, we can go no smaller and still keep the interior dimensions like we want. Understanding that sheathing is 4'x8' my thought is to increase the length to 36' and that would basically be free space. We are down-sizing and do not want a large home but if it would make sense to add a couple more feet for minimal cost why not? Your thoughts appreciated.

 

[s219]

I'd say that even with the best planning, there will be more scrap than you'd like. Studs may nor be uniformly spaced in places due to support requirements, windows, doors, etc. that will in turn dictate how some of the sheathing is cut and used.

When really trying to maximize material usage and minimize waste, start planning from the roof down. If you have gable and eave overhangs, factor that in as well.

Having just built a house, I'd say there are so many factors to juggle, you might want to take a shot a making efficient use of materials, but don't feel bad if you have to let it slide. There are already a bunch of other things to deal with!

Good luck!

 

[bucktaker]

if you are looking to eliminate waste and reduce cost start inside be sure all rooms and walls utilize full sheets and let the exterior perimeter be the odd size
This will help with flooring costs too.

 

[PILOON]

I always hate tossing 12" of floor joist or a 12" strip of plywood into trash so I am with you. Some siding material falls into this category as well.
Plaster board is cheap so that is no brainer. Plumbing and elect always uses up bits so that's no concern.
When you consider it adding 1 foot to a wall is merely 1 stud more.
Where you really can save is in the floor plan.
The more checks and nooks the costlier to build as corners eat up studs and roofing gets complicated. Foundation guys charge extra for each corner while straight runs are merely by the foot.
Then later comes maintenance. A roof with lots of hips and valleys will deteriorate faster as there will be poorer circulation and cost more to repair.
While not as pretty, a square box shape with even dimensions will be the lowest cost to build.
You selected 28' as one dimension which is good as that is twice 14 which is a OK for 2 x 10's while over would call for 2 x 12's.
Sideing is generally not an issue even though it generally is in 12' lengths as widows and doors rapidly chop the runs into usable lengths with minimal trash left over.

I'd for sure encourage you to round out the dimension to 36 ft as that last foot will be painless.

By the same token, roofing is also interesting to consider.
Sometimes more overhang only costs a few shingles as it saves cutting off decking and creating scrap (ie 24" vs 16" overhang.) The more overhang the better protected the sideing.

One area I encourage to spend more on is the roof. Here I like to cover the entire roof with self adhesive self sealing membrane before laying shingles. In fact a trend is to lay better membrane and cheaper shingles as the membrane is really your leak protection while the shingles provide UV protection to the membrane. Also most membranes are 'self healing' in that heat softens them to the point that they self cure and actually plug up nail holes etc.

 

[Tomtint]

You can not justify using all the material in a few sheets of plywood as a cost effective means of sizing a home. The bigger it is the more everything else involved costs. If you cut 2 feet off a sheet and think it's wasted money, figure out how much that 2 feet of plywood costs to put a foundation under,frame, side,insulate,electrify,roof,etc. It's a snowball. Build what you want and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

The shell is the cheapest part of the house. Fixtures and finish is where the money goes, particularly in the kitchen. If you add the square footage to bedrooms, it will be cheap. If you add it to the kitchen or bathrooms, not so much.

 

[SSdoxie]

35' long is odd measurement when calculating rafter spacing @ 2' OC & stud and joist spacing @ 16' OC. Sheating is small fraction of the cost and at 35' likely to have more waste. Adding the extra foot will not require another rafter, floor or ceiling joist. Only extra cost will be in foundation and roofing if shingled and that would only be a couple bundles.

 

[CurlyDave]

The shell is the cheapest part of the house. Fixtures and finish is where the money goes, particularly in the kitchen. If you add the square footage to bedrooms, it will be cheap. If you add it to the kitchen or bathrooms, not so much.

This is very true, although there is one more thing to consider. A wise old man told me that on any job, the highest costs walk on two legs. Labor is going to be the biggest single item in a build. The simpler the design, the less it is going to cost. But, before you jump on that, think about whether you want to live in a low-cost box or do you want a home with more visual appeal?

 

[ultrarunner]

A builder friend has done real well building spec homes the last 45 years... when he was starting out... his homes offered the most square feet for the money because they were basically cubes...

Irish Tom is his name and he never finished 8th grade... came here with nothing and made a good life knowing how to build... his homes today are in the 2 million range.

Anyway, he explained it as follows and he was also a stickler for using everything he paid for... no wasting a foot from a floor joist or cutting plywood panels...

Example:

a 40 x 40 home has 160 lf of walls and provides 1600 square feet of home.

a 30 x 50 home also has 160 lf of walls and provides only 1500 square feet home...

Tom is the smartest guy I know without a formal education... he always told not having money to waste makes you efficient!

 

[Beltzington]

Thanks everyone, good points. No free rides

This is very true, although there is one more thing to consider. A wise old man told me that on any job, the highest costs walk on two legs. Labor is going to be the biggest single item in a build. The simpler the design, the less it is going to cost. But, before you jump on that, think about whether you want to live in a low-cost box or do you want a home with more visual appeal?

Labor is what has delayed building for 5 years. Our initial plan was a turn key house but getting half a million in debt 5 years before planned retirement made us rethink allot of things. Downsizing square footage, simplified construction and many discussions with contractors and building inspectors have led to the decision to have the foundation poured and house dried in by sub-contractors and do most of the interior work including electrical and plumbing as time and money permit. The real work was finding out how the county building inspectors will let me function as the GM for this project. Current trends born by the states desire to weed out developers who purposely defraud buyers by going out of business after building 100 houses leaving the buyers hanging have made it almost impossible to for an individual to build their own house.

As far as curb appeal this house will be on 8-acres, 100 yards from the fence on a dead-end road and I am hoping it doesn't draw any interest to those out looking for a place to rob. Comfortable inside and boring outside is the goal.

Example:

a 40 x 40 home has 160 lf of walls and provides 1600 square feet of home.

a 30 x 50 home also has 160 lf of walls and provides only 1500 square feet home...

Tom is the smartest guy I know without a formal education... he always told not having money to waste makes you efficient!

Thanks for the math review, I had forgotten that anomaly of area of a square, surprised Tom didn't build round houses :laughing: