Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Pretentious Architects With A Staggering Level Of Ignorance............


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 stones

stones

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • LocationOrkney

Posted 28 June 2014 - 06:25 PM

Building Dream Homes was on BBC - was on iPlayer but maybe unavailable now.

J

#22 adwindrum

adwindrum

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:49 AM

Good old housebuilding with all its complications and impossible ability to compare apples and oranges....

I appreciate you are comparing your actual build cost with quotes you received from other companies to do a similar spec. i think the question should be however what you would have saved if you had built your own house yourself as you have to building regs.

Declan is simply off the scale in terms of low cost! Bloomin well done, although I wouldnt wish that sort of workload on anyone with kids. I am loathing missing out on so many things with the young ones this year.

MVHR can be bought for £1000 but that is the start...design, ducting, vents, tape, insulation, commissioning etc can easily surpass that on a family home.

Tapes etc even at £700 then need fitting.

Again if you exclude labour, prices seem reasonable, yet you arent excluding it when you compare your quote with builders quotes.

I want to be persuaded that the mantra on here of "it doesnt cost more to build to passive", but all I see is extra material to reach passive not less, and extra material has an intrinsic cost.

Lets make passive a building reg, then we would have nothing to compare to...or dumb down to!

#23 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:58 AM

All those quote comparisons were on a similar basis, and were for a company (or in most cases two companies) to supply and build a foundation system and an insulated frame, felted and battened so that I could then manage the rest of the build. The most expensive quote was, as I said, hardly better than building regs, with wall U values of 0.18 and a roof U value of 0.19, not to the spec I wanted, which was much better than this. That quote, together with the best foundation quote I had, came to around 40% MORE than the passive house build we went for. Even the local builder (who had already quoted to build a conventional house on this plot, for the previous owner of it) was 15% more than the passive build, and that was for a standard block built house with an outer skin of local stone, an open fireplace in the living room and levels of insulation that barely met building regs.

You seem to think I'm excluding labour here, but I'm not. I didn't do any work on the basic house at all, I've only physically worked on some of the fitting out (plumbing, ventilation system, heating, kitchen and bathroom install). I was comparing quotes on a like-for-like basis.

There's probably less material in our build, and certainly massively less labour, then in a block/brick build, and it's this that really contributes to offsetting the extra cost of things like MVHR.

Edited by jsharris, 29 June 2014 - 08:02 AM.


#24 adwindrum

adwindrum

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:30 AM

Thanks for bearing with me!

I just cant understand the main features of the frame are as follows, each with extra labour and materials.

a) you will have thicker walls. This means either twin wall or larger timbers. Both need more timber. You then have extra insulation to fill the gap.
b) triple glazed is a third panel of glass ie extra. even Declans £900 extra is significant, particularly on his build budget.
c) all the detailing around windows, doors, at every junction and penetration needing specialist tape and time and serious pre-planning.

I had quotes from your builder and they were much higher than the local firm I ended up with (and not as good to boot as expected), I am filling the insulation and it is this that is making me hark on about passive costs. I could fill it right up and get very low U-values, but I am balking at the cost.

Edited by joiner, 29 June 2014 - 01:17 PM.


#25 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:37 AM

*
POPULAR

@adwindrum

I don't think Jeremy is saying his passive house cost less per se. Yes if he had fitted double glazing with trickle ventilators and no mvhr, and fitted less insulation it would have been cheaper. but it would have been a much poorer house for it.

What he is saying is using the build system he did, which is very efficient in terms of labour and materials, meant that he got a passive house for a little less than most ordinary house build systems would have cost.

In your case, I would definitely 100% fill your walls with insulation. don't miss any out, you will regret it. And definitely fit good windows, even if only double glazed

Don't spoil the ship for a hapeth of tar.

Edited by ProDave, 29 June 2014 - 08:38 AM.


#26 declan52

declan52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • LocationCo. armagh

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:54 AM

In order for my build to work I had to do most of the work myself. The bank would only lend me £85,000 so that was all I had to work with. I had built and roofed it out of savings so the money I had was all that was available.
Doing out the costings for the bank I had a budget set for each stage. This was all I had to work with and any money saved I could use elsewhere. I saved £2000 on my mhrv system so was able to do ufh. As labour is the biggest expense this is where I could save the most.
I am realistic as to how close to pH standard I will get as my budget has placed restrictions on what I could put in. I wanted 200mm rafters for the extra insulation depth but had to go for 150 as it was costing £1500 extra at the time when we were sailing close to wind money wise.
In order to get fully pH standard I might have had to find an extra £6000. Most of this would have been structural. Wider cavity so another 50mm in there. The extra in the rafters and extra in the floor. Would still have got the 3g windows from mmunster joinery and my airtightness material bill would have been the same.
So if like jsh you are buying a package build then all these extras of mine would be in your price.
Each build is different and each person skills are different. I am fairly lucky that 15 years spent on sites I have picked up a lot of skills and knowledge. Its pretty easy if you do some work whether its cleaning up, carrying materials into the house or bricklaying or plumbing then your not paying somebody else to do it. All the small jobs need done none more important than keeping the site tidy.
I have had my teenage son cleaning up from the start, he just knows what to do now after he huffs a bit of course. Teenagers!!!.

#27 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:57 AM

View PostProDave, on 29 June 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

@adwindrum

I don't think Jeremy is saying his passive house cost less per se. Yes if he had fitted double glazing with trickle ventilators and no mvhr, and fitted less insulation it would have been cheaper. but it would have been a much poorer house for it.

What he is saying is using the build system he did, which is very efficient in terms of labour and materials, meant that he got a passive house for a little less than most ordinary house build systems would have cost.

You're right, Dave, what I'm saying is that for my circumstance (plot location, planning restrictions, relatively high local labour costs) it was significantly cheaper for me to build this house as a passive house than it would have been to have built it as a conventional block and stone, or timber frame, house. For example, If I subtract the cost of the foundations, windows finishing etc and just compare the 7 quotes I have for building the house structure, with insulation, then the most expensive was £65k, for a SIPs build with U values of 0.18 walls, 0.19 roof. The least expensive was about £45k, and met passive house insulation and airtightness levels (bit of a guess here, but I've assumed £8k for the foundations, which could have really been around £10k, as that would have been the cost for using either the Isoquick or Supergrund systems I had quotes for). In between that I had quotes (excluding foundations) ranging from £49k for a moderately good SIPs build, to £61k for a block and stone build that barely met building regs.

Edited by jsharris, 29 June 2014 - 08:59 AM.


#28 HHP

HHP

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationBearsden, Scotland

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:26 AM

Jeremy, have you uploaded your house spec with U values in an earlier message? It would be very interesting to see.

Harry

#29 TerryE

TerryE

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • LocationSouth Northants

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:56 AM

see Heat Loss Calculations post #4 :)