Try editing your dilemma. Some words appear to be missing from the post.

Thanks Apple...added the topic in the description.

Charpell...I don’t want it all on first floor. I’d just like to slice the master bedroom, master sitting area and bath off the top and put it on the bottom.

Is it solely because the cost of concrete is more expensive than wood and drywall.

Not solely... Exterior surfaces are more expensive to build than interior surfaces. Two story homes simply have fewer exterior surfaces. Smaller foundations and smaller roofs, for only a bit more exterior walls.

This assumes that everything else is held equal. you can absolutely build a more expensive two story if you use a more complicated roof and have a design that requires lots of steel.

It depends on the design, location, and fluctuation in materials and labor cost. Generally, one foundation and one roof is cheaper. BUT, it requires more space to deal with stairs and more money to deal with the cost of stairs. Etc.

So, it depends. Are you building a nightmare roof single floor “hacienda”? Or a two story salt box Colonial?

Not trying to be anything other than respectful, it is either time you hire someone you really trust to take care of all of these details, or resign yourself to dedicating a lot of time doing some research.

I agree Bry. I guess I just don’t want to be totally ignorant. When you have been taken advantage of in the past by contractors, it’s a paralyzing trauma to get over and unfortunately you do more than you’d wish to in the hopes that you’ll never be so vulnerable again. It doesn’t always help the situation but some due diligence makes one feel a little better.

If you're planning on building a 4000-5000 sq. foot house putting a master suite on the main floor should not be an issue. There are a lot of houses smaller than that with first floor masters suites.

I don't think it's the master suite that's making you compromise. I think it's the lack of knowledge about design and house building. I would recommend you spend a few hours reading every single threads here, especially the ones that review a floor plan. There is much knowledge to be gained.

Then read all of the threads about design. Next pick up a basic book on house construction. As you read the threads you'll come across some specific books. That's how you educate yourself so you're not "totally ignorant."

Well...it sorta depends...how far out? How far up? Depends on the design and the complexity or simplicity. Usually more foundation and roof structures are more expensive than less foundation and roof structures. Usually.

More intricate roofs requires more steel and/ or sq footage...load bearing?

Wood flexes, the longer the span (unsupported distance) the more it flexes and too much flex will eventually cause a failure. More weight causes wood to flex more and everything you have in your house from drywall to furniture to even the snow on your roof will add weight to the wood. So there is an effective limit to your spans (which means that there is an effective limit to how open a space can be in your house).

Additionally, all of this weight in your house gets transferred down to the foundation by load bearing walls. You will often hear people ask, "is this wall load bearing," which means that they are really asking, "can I remove this wall?". However, it is important to understand that the answer to both of those questions may be no. Load bearing walls transfer weight to the foundation, but non load bearing walls may be used to add stiffness to the spans above. In other words, houses require load bearing walls to stand up, but non load bearing walls are often used to prevent houses from becoming trampolines.

Beams may replace load bearing walls to transfer that weight to the foundation, beams are commonly wood, composite wood, or steel. Each of those allows for longer spans respectively, but go up in price respectively.

Two story houses generally use more load bearing walls or beams than do one story houses simply because you have the load of the second floor and the roof that needs to get transferred down to the footer rather than just the load of the roof, but that isn't always the case, if your roof gets deep enough you will need load bearing in a one story also.

---------

As for roof cost, every peak on a roof adds cost to the roof. This means that a straight single peaked roof will always be cheaper to build than the same roof with a couple of dormers. This also means that every bumpout usually adds to the cost of a house. However, both of these things may also add appeal so are good to add to a point, however, too much of a good thing gets costly and ugly.

----------

Note: others who are better at this and more experienced than I am might add clarity or corrections to the above post, and this is a very brief and elementary explanation rather than an exhaustive one.

Your most cost effective approach will depend on the land and how much room you have to work with. On a flat lot with slab on grade construction that could be a single level home. On a sloping lot with a walk out basement that could be two stories with walk out.

The cost to build will depend on gross square footage (everything under roof) and the finished area. The biggest budget buster will be unused space like unfinished basements that don't have finished space. Plan now to use all the space you create. The objective is to reduce the overall gross area and footprint. The more you can balance the area required on each level the more efficient the overall structure will be. This usually means keeping the main level as efficient as possible and locating any accessory rooms like offices or exercise areas on other levels. A good tool for balancing the levels is a spreadsheet with approximate room sizes. Total the area for each floor and add 15% for circulation and the thickness of the walls.

Another thought on levels... Decent stairs are expensive and take about 100 s.f. It doesn't make sense to add a level if it only has a few square feet. i.e. If you need 500 more s.f. and can keep it on the main level, keep it on the main level.

Tammie, some good book recommendations in this thread below. You don't want to spend the next 2-3 years on research, but a little bit of education on a new subject can go a long way toward understanding what (and who) you're dealing with : ) . Especially if you've been taken advantage of in the past.

https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/3281434/book-suggestions?n=10

The cost to build will depend on gross square footage (everything under roof) and the finished area.

As a clarification, it is true that holding all else constant, smaller costs less. The distinction is this, you can almost always make a design cheaper by cutting out square footage, but that doesn't mean a design with less square footage is going to be cheaper.

Here is a home near me in a newer neighborhood

I could cut a hundred thousand dollars out of that house by adding 800 square feet to the house.

Note: if this happens to be your house...my apologies.

^^^Not to mention the 100K of repairing leaks that is in that homeownwe’s future if they didn’t upgrade to 100% Ice and Water shield under at least half the build.

bry911 - that is an EXCELLENT example of "multiple roof lines"! That roof is probably worth 30% of the build! Zoinks!

I would look for an architect who SPECIALIZES in Tudor/Victorian/Georgian reproductions. Interviewing residential architects will be the single most important thing you do. Remember your building ABC's:

Architect

Before

Contractor

You want to find someone who has a history of building the type of home you want to create. That's item #1 on your to-do list. If you have MULTIPLE professionals in your area to choose from, then you want to find someone who has a decent "personality" fit.

Then you want to talk about whether or not the architect will be supervising the ENTIRE build or just responsible for the blue prints (which you purchase and then go "contractor shopping").

If you have been burned by the building industry before, then you are better off working with the architect as the supervisor. Architects will have a set of contractors that they like to work with. They will have created working relationships built on trust and adherence to schedules (both financial and temporal). And they are the BIG BOYS on the build site. What the Architect says is LAW! They do the bullying for you.

As someone who is now gun shy, I suggest you spend a bit more upfront for the architect "team" approach so that you can have peace of mind throughout the build.

And just in case you are wondering, architects can SAVE YOU MONEY. Their fees are often the same amount of money SAVED during a build. Yep. That means you get to all the professional services of an architect for FREE. That's how much you save.

Their fees are "up front" so it FEELS like a lot of money....but you SAVE that amount on time lines, streamlining and on the subcontractors.

Win-win in my books. So start interviewing.

Tammie, definitely take a look at "Designing Your Perfect House" by William J. Hirsch Jr. It's only $8 on Kindle : ) .

I haven't seen the chubby builder book recommended here before, but many of us have read, liked, and recommended the Hirsch book. Ditto for "What Your Contractor Can't Tell You" by Amy Johnson (and I'm married to a builder lol).

I’m leaning towards Tudor style.

I love you!!! <3 Tudor is one of my favorite "grown up" styles (my ultimate favorite is Storybook, but it's too much whimsy for my husband, lol).

It's my understanding that if you keep the top and bottom parts of the house the same, so that they share both a foundation and a roof, that it's generally cheaper than building a single story of the same square footage or a two story with a smaller upper half. Simpler roofs (gable) reduce the cost, but even slightly more complicated (like a simple cross gable) will increase expenses, as will pitch. And a respectable Tudor must have a steeper pitch, otherwise, ya might as well build something else. ;-)

-- But --

If you have a liking of complicated staircases, this may eat up some (all?) of the savings, depending on the design. For example, I love a nicely detailed, non-linear (anything besides a straight run) staircase with built-in storage underneath every tread. I'd like pull-out drawers that open off to the side of the bottom quarter/third of the staircase, and either storage shelves or a powder room under the remaining section. Custom stair design and construction, combined with the custom cabinetry to do these things, will be $$$$$. If my house ends up being Spanish Colonial, I gotta add more $$$$$ for a staircase capable of handling the weight of tile, plus the labor expertise of the tile installation.

The details matter. A lot.

I've been on commercial jobs where plumbers have explained to architects how they could have saved the state of Ohio taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars on a job, but the pencil pushers weren't going to take any advice from lowly tradesmen. Made me sick. As a tradesman and a taxpayer.

Nothing against architects, but they aren't Gods. On my jobs they're subs.

Every public library would have a copy of The Not So Big House - A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live by Sarah Susanka. It's a great read. It has a section Dreams, Details and Dollars that talks about the trade offs between size and quality. She addresses your question on pg 139. Basically, the skin of the house is the most expensive part. The most economical design is a Colonial with a gable roof since it encloses the most square footage for the minimum of surface area.

I added on and went up. Worst decision...housewise. Hate to go up there and there are so many reasons to go up when you have kids.

Just something I didn't here mentioned. Location dictates the answer a bit.

Building on a basement (or deep frost line) costs significantly more than a slab in the South. Building up means saving foundation and roof. Foundation costs are significantly higher in the North.

Roof costs are also variable. If you are building something other than asphalt, then roof costs are more expensive.

Also in the North, there is a greater cost for being inefficient in packaging. Since wall/insulation/heating costs are greater, there is a greater penalty for avoiding the saltbox.

Generally, building 4000-5000 sqft is not a budget build. Most of the time, people here are going to suggest decreasing square footage to save money if that is the concern. Everyone thinks they want a really big house until they have one (IMO). But I certainly get that appraisal and resale are issues..

"Building on a basement (or deep frost line) costs significantly more than a slab in the South."

David:

Your statement lacks context. You have to compare the completed living space cost per square foot of a house with the additional expense of a basement to the completed living space cost per square foot of a home on a slab. Without that, there is no way to measure the value (or none) provided by a basement.

Run the numbers and I promise you the cost effectiveness of a basement will be obvious.

I like to start my Sunday morning off with some geometry... Here goes.

When we look at the shapes above we must consider multiple things, corners, the roof, and the exterior wall. I am ignoring circles, octagons, etc.

In A vs. B above they have the same area but A has a perimeter of 200 while B has a perimeter of 250. In houses squares are the most efficient spaces to a point (note: that when houses get substantially large the cost to build a roof on a square house might get larger and the house might get too dark. So they are not really loved these days).

So let's look at bumpouts... Both C and D above have the same perimeter, but C has an area of 2,750 while D has an area of 3,000. Additionally, C will require a more complicated roof than D (an additional peak) which will add costs.

Also, when building, a straight wall is cheaper to build than a corner. So looking at E and F, the former will be cheaper to build than the latter, even though they have the same perimeter and the same area, the one that eliminates a corner will be cheaper.

The geometry is simple, but the reality is a little more complicated. Roofs have a practical limit, since your roof is probably going to slope it will get taller as your house gets deeper (not to mention your house will get darker as it gets deeper), so eventually your roof will exceed the practical limit and start getting more expensive. Lumber is only cost effective in certain lengths, etc.

The most cost efficient spaces are converting spaces you already have to have in a home into living spaces. This refers to basements and attics. You are already building a roof over your house and as roof pitches have gotten higher lately, the 1.5 story starts making more sense, this converts space under the roof into living space and if done properly is probably the most efficient square footage in a house. Additionally, in locations where you are already digging down to a deeper frost line or on lots that slope away from front to back, a basement will absolutely be efficient square footage, however, basements are not always welcoming. I believe the mistake most people make in basements is they consider them add-on spaces rather than thoughtfully designing and engineering basements. Moisture control is essential for basements and while they are incredibly efficient square footage at times, never save money in a basement.

---------

None of this means you should build your house to be completely cost effective, but you should consider the effect of adding complication just to impress your neighbor. I question this guy's priorities but if I was his neighbor I would be impressed...

ETA: To be fair this guy (yes I am assuming the gender) might have needed to downsize after getting the bill for the first oil change. It cost about $21,000 just to change the oil in that car...

Of course, I was not giving any value to the basement square footage. And of course finishing the basement is the cheapest square footage. Those things I figured are common knowledge but I wasn't clear. The square footage desired I presumed was above ground so then the basement was just a cost. Of course it has value. But at some point 3000 vs 2000 sqft basement isn't worth that much more which is the difference here between building up or out.

David,

I wasn't arguing against your position just adding clarity. I think basements are typically inefficient square footage in a house because they are viewed as cheap additional square footage rather than thoughtfully integrated into the design of a house and engineered to properly to withstand the unique conditions of below grade square footage.

Were I in your shoes, I'd start by considering an existing house plan and customizing it. If you choose a house where gable location and roof pitches are Tudoresque, a good architect can then add Tudor detailing for you - or I should say, revise the design heavily to permit Tudor styling. Here's a good candidate: https://www.houseplans.pro/plans/plan/10090

Be aware that a convincing modern Tudor is one of the more expensive styles to build. Unlike sleek and simple modern styles which can be built simply, Tudor style requires lots of detailing, convolution of massing, variable roof planes, varied and specifically detailed windows (diamond leaded etc.), timbering, niches, elaborate brickwork (not just running bond, but framed herringbone and other decorative techniques), a massive oak door with wrought iron fittings, real shutters with working shutter dogs, copper gutters, etc. etc. And I haven't even mentioned the inside. All those details require extra time to design, and extra materials, highly customized materials, labor and skilled labor to accomplish. You could get quotes on the 10090 built as shown, and then built as it would be if capably Tudorized. I'd guess $300-400k in my area just as an upcharge. Minimum.

You can simplify the Tudor style, but at some point the charm will be gone. It may make sense to work with an architect to capture the charm you want in a more achievable style. (BTW I adore the little Tudor Revival houses in my hometown of Minneapolis.)

Well...if we are considering geometry, I believe a circle or a sphere may enclose the greatest volume with the least surface area.

So, why don't we all live in Yurts? Or geodesic domes? With or without basement?

My point, simply, is that at some point the quality of life and living become a priority for many of us and that's where shelter and architecture separate and diverge. We all have to decide on whether efficiency or quality of life are our dominant priorities for our domiciles.

I designed my own home (about 2400 sq feet) working loosely from a plan. I looked for builders for months and went to lots of model homes. Finally, I went to visit a custom builder. I walked in his door and we spoke for an hour. When I left his office I called my husband and said "We are building with this builder, and if we can't afford to, we will buy an existing home."

We could have gone with a builder in one of the existing developments and gotten hundreds of extra square feet for the same price. But there is just absolutely no substitute for the relationship we had with our builder, nor the quality of his subs. He told us his homes took a bit longer to build, because he liked to use the same subs. Every one of them was incredible. When our pool builder came in and saw our tile work he was blown away by the quality. No, it wasn't fancy tile or inlays, it was just fantastic workmanship.

Our builder wouldn't let us make mistakes like 3" baseboard with ten foot ceilings. He also helped me to gain extra square footage and cut costs through "reengineering." He told me in our initial meeting he didn't bargain on price, but he'd help me figure out cost savings if we needed to. He knew I really wanted our garage set back from the house a bit. When I got the final plan from the architect, he'd figured out a way to make it happen.

When I hear about the nightmare stories others have when building a home, I am just so thankful I spent a long time picking my builder and that I found the best. If you feel like you will be the dunce in the room, in my opinion you have the wrong builder. My builder frequently built homes in your size range... we were one of the smaller homes in his portfolio.

Find a builder no one says a bad word about. One who doesn't mind if you ask a hundred questions-- we sure did! They are out there, not necessarily with the big marketing campaigns. If they don't treat you with respect when you talk with them initially, it won't get better.

These are just my thoughts! I hope you find a wonderful builder!

Well...if we are considering geometry, I believe a circle or a sphere may enclose the greatest volume with the least surface area.

We are not considering geometry... We are using geometry to understand cost drivers. I did note that I was removing circles from the discussion, the reason being that circles are not typically the most cost effective home shape even if they do reduce exterior wall surfaces.

So, why don't we all live in Yurts? Or geodesic domes? With or without basement?

Again, this was specifically addressed but if you need further clarification here it comes.

------------

When I posted I knew this comment was coming and it was specifically addressed. Understanding how the basic design decisions drive the cost of a house doesn't lead to refrigerator boxes as homes, it leads to purpose based architecture rather than needing another bumpout because your neighbor has 6 and you need at least 7.

The idea that we need to somehow protect people from being too thrifty on their homes is ridiculous on its face. We are currently on a thread discussing a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot house, and while an understanding of how the shape of a house does change the price of a house, I think it safe to say that a bit of excess is protected by the premise itself.

I submit that tract builders and drafters who succumb to the pressures of an architectural movement based on bumpout one-upmanship are the only ones who will really suffer if people were more concerned about purpose driven design.

Well...as a retired architect and educator, I've never heard of the term "purpose based or driven architecture". Bob tells me I'm old and don't get out much any more...which is true.

Perhaps your are suggesting that form follows function--an old architectural comment. As I recall from the good ole' days, architecture is truly about form and function. It's not really about excess, regardless of premise. And architecture is not about styles or trends.

Tract builders and drafters aren't architects and can't succumb to pressures of architectural movements they know nothing about. But there is a lot of "bumpsmanship", "nested gables", and a "myriad of materials", none of which have anything to do with architecture or a knowledge of architecture.

Builders build what is familiar and what they think will sell. Drafters simply draft what they are requested to draft. Seldom is any of this architecture.

And that is a point to consider: there's architecture and there's not.

Following

Here's a good candidate: https://www.houseplans.pro/plans/plan/10090

I don't consider that a good candidate at all. I consider that a McMansion wannabe.

Find a builder no one says a bad word about. One who doesn't mind if you ask a hundred questions-- we sure did! They are out there, not necessarily with the big marketing campaigns. If they don't treat you with respect when you talk with them initially, it won't get better.

Know that even doing all that work where no one says a bad word doesn't mean things won't change. We checked with lots of our builder's former customers. All of whom had only wonderful things to say about our builder and how he went the extra mile. Of course that was before he overextended himself.

Well...as a retired architect and educator, I've never heard of the term "purpose based or driven architecture". Bob tells me I'm old and don't get out much any more...which is true.

Why do you feel that every set of words must be an official term? No one is claiming that there is a term purpose based architecture or anything of the sort. They are simply three words used in sentence, a compound predicate with an object (don't quote me on that, my sentence diagramming is a bit rusty).

I am most definitely not talking about form following function. Form is a purpose as is function. You can pretend that most tract builders don't have an architect, but they do. So you can defend the idea that tract homes aren't architecture, which again is getting a bit into silly semantics. Architecture is unfortunately a very broad term.

Tract builders and drafters aren't architects

Architect - from the Greek Arkhitekton which means master builder. It later came to mean superintendent and eventually what we have today. What we have today is a word with very broad acceptable meanings. In the U.S. architects have licensed the title, yet the term architecture is still very broad. You can assert that it means the earth is flat if you want, however, that doesn't make it so.

I too have this friend who I feel can contribute our discussion, his name is Richard. Richard is mostly a great guy but a bit territorial, whenever I step into Richard's yard he will start yelling at me and then start chasing me until I leave his yard. The problem being that Richard often leaves an obstacle or two on the sidewalk so that walking into his yard just seems appropriate. The moral of this story is, don't be a...

Hi cpartist, I am sorry for your bad experience. I know even all the "due diligence" in the world can't protect from something going wrong. Our builder built 6-8 homes a year. A former customer did recommend I talk to our builder, but it was actually the hundreds of questions I asked that made me know for sure, because he answered every question without any pause. We just developed a great rapport!

Look with a very critical eye at spec homes. Some builders I ruled out based on their spec homes... good grief, if they don't care enough to make their spec home pretty close to perfect (cabinet drawers crashing into countertop edges!) what is the chance that they will do better on my home? Absolutely wouldn't work with someone who put a home like that on the market as a representation of his/her work.

One other thing that speaks volumes about a builder is what does his/her employees say? I literally never heard one bad word about this builder from his employees, from his subs, anyone. When I walked into the pool store just a few minutes after signing the contract on our house, the pool builder asked who was building our home. I told her. Totally unsolicited she said "He is a great builder and such a wonderful man."

Maybe I was just lucky (I sure think I was!) but the bottom line is that when spending well, a heck of a lot of money, a builder should be educating you, not making you feel stupid. It's a partnership, and if it's not, you have the wrong builder.

Just my thoughts, and again, sorry for your not-so-good experience.

Hi Tammie. I used the pool builder recommended by my builder. I think ours was pretty straightforward. I think you'll need to check with a pool builder for your area.

Look with a very critical eye at spec homes. Some builders I ruled out based on their spec homes... good grief, if they don't care enough to make their spec home pretty close to perfect (cabinet drawers crashing into countertop edges!) what is the chance that they will do better on my home? Absolutely wouldn't work with someone who put a home like that on the market as a representation of his/her work.

I can attest to that. I did my homework; interviewed references and visited their homes. Thank goodness there was an open house at one of the builders spec homes and I happened to notice as I drove past.The quality of workmanship was unbelievably bad. Shocking that the builder or super would let it go to market like that and these were expensive homes.