Modern Building Costs and Regs rant

Villain

Is it just me or do others think the current cost of building a house to current standards is far too high?

I started building in 2007 and stopped after I got to Joist level, I have since completed the roof and external render but looking at finishing the house and the costs are a bit crazy imo.

I am also very thankful that I don't have to follow present regs, don't get me wrong I am hoping to exceed them in areas like Insulation but having to put in a renewable source like solar etc is increasing the up front capital investment with little evidence that the pay back will be positive. I have also ensured that the materials I use are as high a standard as possible .e.g all my timber is imported and treated.

I've been living in house for over 2 years now that is over 60 years old and has no central heating and it's been fine even during the worst winter in a decade. We used about 500 litres of oil for a small cooker and the rest of the heating was via solid fuel stove and 1 electric storage heater.

If I was to get my site for free and build my 2600 sqft house to current building regulation I don't believe any bank in the state would lend me the money required. Its almost like anyone that wants to build a house now is been punished for all the crap that was built durng the boom times.

/rant over

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Is it just me or do others think the current cost of building a house to current standards is far too high?

I started building in 2007 and stopped after I got to Joist level, I have since completed the roof and external render but looking at finishing the house and the costs are a bit crazy imo.

I am also very thankful that I don't have to follow present regs, don't get me wrong I am hoping to exceed them in areas like Insulation but having to put in a renewable source like solar etc is increasing the up front capital investment with little evidence that the pay back will be positive. I have also ensured that the materials I use are as high a standard as possible .e.g all my timber is imported and treated.

I've been living in house for over 2 years now that is over 60 years old and has no central heating and it's been fine even during the worst winter in a decade. We used about 500 litres of oil for a small cooker and the rest of the heating was via solid fuel stove and 1 electric storage heater.

If I was to get my site for free and build my 2600 sqft house to current building regulation I don't believe any bank in the state would lend me the money required. Its almost like anyone that wants to build a house now is been punished for all the crap that was built durng the boom times.

/rant over

no, the problem was that houses built during the "boom times" more or less did not reach minimum regs.

We have had insulation regulations changes in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011 and proposed more in 2013.

I can say for a fact that most builders are still stuck in 2005 reg mode... and now all they think they have to do is plant a solar panel on your roof to comply with current regs.

Building costs for the 2011 regs are approximately, in my view, about 10% higher than 2008. However the propose regs require the house to be 20% more efficient than the previous regs (in a roundabout kind of way).

unfortunately, also see 2011 reg compliance as being a bit of a paper exercise because of:
1. no LA building control enforcement
2. onerous thermal bridging factor requirements.... which wont be calculated post completion.
3. 'cash is king' driven projects where building reg compliance is seen as a luxury.
4. bread-line certifiers who are willing to skew the figures to sign certs.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

no, the problem was that houses built during the "boom times" more or less did not reach minimum regs.

We have had insulation regulations changes in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011 and proposed more in 2013.

I can say for a fact that most builders are still stuck in 2005 reg mode... and now all they think they have to do is plant a solar panel on your roof to comply with current regs.

Building costs for the 2011 regs are approximately, in my view, about 10% higher than 2008. However the propose regs require the house to be 20% more efficient than the previous regs (in a roundabout kind of way).

unfortunately, also see 2011 reg compliance as being a bit of a paper exercise because of:
1. no LA building control enforcement
2. onerous thermal bridging factor requirements.... which wont be calculated post completion.
3. 'cash is king' driven projects where building reg compliance is seen as a luxury.
4. bread-line certifiers who are willing to skew the figures to sign certs.

I understand that but I think the cause is that the reg's have gone too far and are now putting home building out of reach of ordinary people. Notice I say home building i.e. a person building a home not someone building a house to sell it.

The ordinary middle class person who wants to build a home is getting squeezed out, the way I see it at present there are three groups of people:
1.Those who get homes for next to nothing i.e. social housing.
2. Young Middle class people who need to get a mortgage to build a home or buy a house.
3. Wealthy people who can build for cash

The middle group are getting squeezed out, unless they wan to buy existing poor quality boom time houses.

I have always wanted to put a HRV system in my home but the Budget just doesn't allow it now.

I haven't been around this forum much in recent years but reading it now it's full of replies saying you need to see what the Deap analysis says you need or contact and professional etc etc and while I can understand that response the day of a person building an ordinary decent home is dying. The costs and availability of funds at decent rates are killing it off.

I also think the main issue is our culture not the standard of building, most people now go through crazy amounts of oil and yes higher spec insulation air tightness and heat recovery will lower that requirment but it's easier to change what people need. As in 15c is perfectly fine for living areas and 12c to 15c is fine for bedrooms the rest of the rooms just need ventilation and heat as required. But most people want to walk around their home with a t-shirt on have all rooms at 21c.

Central heating is a curse really as most people don't have enough zones and are heating areas of houses that don't need it.

Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective but living in an old home with no central heating has shown me how in many ways the old ways of heating homes were far more sensible and effective and modern ways have gone too far at costs that are forcing people to buy poor qulaity houses rather than build a high quality home?

sydthebeat

no i dont agree..... everyone has a budget starting off....

what these regs do is focus peoples attention waaaaayyyyyyy more into the minute detail of the design... the days of equating budget to square footage is gone, thankfully.

say i have 200K and need a four bed house.... well 6-7 years ago i might have had a study / playroom. conservatory etc thrown into teh brief... nowadays its necessity because people realise that both the build cost and the running cost of the "per sq ft" is high.

that being said, i still see build costs coming in at 75-85 per sq ft... which is definitely comparable to 2006 - 2007 rates. It may be skewed because of the recession, but that just goes to show the value out there right now versus the super profits of the end of the tiger days. Money was cheap so prices were high.


House building is not out of the reach of a certain economic class because regs have changed..... house building is out of the reach of some because there is no more cheap money available to borrow to build...

theres a MAJOR difference there.

DOCARCH

One expectation I think that people will have to consider and/or curtail in the future is the size of their houses. Does an average family really need a 2,600 sq.ft. house???

Probably not?

Statisically, as far as I can remember reading a while back, we in Ireland for the last 25 years have being building (by far) on averger the largest houses in Europe (with the UK following behind in second place).

This is going to become more and more a consideration in the future in terms of energy use, efficiency, suatainability, construction cost, property tax, etc., etc.

In my opinion, a well planned 1,200 sq.ft to 1,500 sq.ft. house would probably suffice most average families and give a very comfortable standard of living. It should be all about the quality of the space, rather than the quantity of the space.

A while back I did a design for a client for a new house - I fulfilled their brief (i.e. what they wanted in terms of spaces, etc.) but the design was dismissed as the house was only 1,800 sq.ft. They wanted a house in excess of 2,000 sq.ft. - they had not stated that originally, but assumed their brief would amount to at least that!

Not sure if partly this desire for square footage is to do with bragging???

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

no i dont agree..... everyone has a budget starting off....

what these regs do is focus peoples attention waaaaayyyyyyy more into the minute detail of the design... the days of equating budget to square footage is gone, thankfully.

say i have 200K and need a four bed house.... well 6-7 years ago i might have had a study / playroom. conservatory etc thrown into teh brief... nowadays its necessity because people realise that both the build cost and the running cost of the "per sq ft" is high.

that being said, i still see build costs coming in at 75-85 per sq ft... which is definitely comparable to 2006 - 2007 rates. It may be skewed because of the recession, but that just goes to show the value out there right now versus the super profits of the end of the tiger days. Money was cheap so prices were high.


House building is not out of the reach of a certain economic class because regs have changed..... house building is out of the reach of some because there is no more cheap money available to borrow to build...

theres a MAJOR difference there.

Well in my opinion the regs have added a cost level that is making it even harder to get those funds.

Villain

DOCARCH wrote: »

One expectation I think that people will have to consider and/or curtail in the future is the size of their houses. Does an average family really need a 2,600 sq.ft. house???

Probably not?

Statisically, as far as I can remember reading a while back, we in Ireland for the last 25 years have being building (by far) on averger the largest houses in Europe (with the UK following behind in second place).

This is going to become more and more a consideration in the future in terms of energy use, efficiency, suatainability, construction cost, property tax, etc., etc.

In my opinion, a well planned 1,200 sq.ft to 1,500 sq.ft. house would probably suffice most average families and give a very comfortable standard of living. It should be all about the quality of the space, rather than the quantity of the space.

A while back I did a design for a client for a new house - I fulfilled their brief (i.e. what they wanted in terms of spaces, etc.) but the design was dismissed as the house was only 1,800 sq.ft. They wanted a house in excess of 2,000 sq.ft. - they had not stated that originally, but assumed their brief would amount to at least that!

Not sure if partly this desire for square footage is to do with bragging???

I do strongly agree with that, thats my major regret at present - the house is too big. I was younger when I went for planning and everyone was telling me to build bigger etc but there will be rooms in the house now that won't be finished for many years

archtech

sydthebeat wrote: »

House building is not out of the reach of a certain economic class because regs have changed..... house building is out of the reach of some because there is no more cheap money available to borrow to build...

I agree and would go further than many house builders are still not prepared to build what they can afford and think they need 2000sq.foot plus, when in reality they can only afford 1500sq.foot.

DOCARCH wrote: »

In my opinion, a well planned 1,200 sq.ft to 1,500 sq.ft. house would probably suffice most average families and give a very comfortable standard of living. It should be all about the quality of the space, rather than the quantity of the space.

Back in the day of the first time buyers grant (£3000) a requirement was a house had to be less than 1350sq.feet and for many self builders that was their design brief. As a size it has works for most average families. The down side of the grant was the "bungalow bliss" phenomenal where many houses were not well designed for the environment there were in, in terms of orientation etc, however I do think the days of poor design are behind us and people now generally see the value of good design and working with the site. House builders in the future are going to have to look at building smaller, if they want to build at all.

Villain wrote: »

Well in my opinion the regs have added a cost level that is making it even harder to get those funds.

Added cost compared to when? Certainly the cost of houses today are no more expensive than they were 10, 15 years ago in my experience and One today is getting a far more energy efficient house. If people were to build houses today to the energy efficiency standards (in terms of regs) of 15 years ago, they would not be able to afford to heat the house, at the average size of the houses built today.

Villain

archtech wrote: »

Added cost compared to when? Certainly the cost of houses today are no more expensive than they were 10, 15 years ago in my experience and One today is getting a far more energy efficient house.

Compared to 6 years ago, the cost of houses may not be more expensive but the cost to build certainly is but thats another story that doesn't concern me as I'm building to live in not sell.

archtech wrote: »

If people were to build houses today to the energy efficiency standards (in terms of regs) of 15 years ago, they would not be able to afford to heat the house, at the average size of the houses built today.

You see that was my point earlier I am living in a house with next to no insulation that was built 60 years ago and its fine, my heating bill was far far lower than relatives with houses the same size that were built in the last 7 years.

It's how we live more than anything else, we need to move away from heating every room to 20c it's crazy and all the building regs are doing are keeping those temps for longer with less energy but still far too much energy.

I know passive homes are different but the up front capital costs are far greater and give the current interest rates the payback for those who need to borrow to fund the build may be far greater than people think e.g. a 250k Mortgage can cost over 600k to pay back!