So there's your answer, the cost is the same if you ignore certain pertinent factors.

Our house is 2000 sq ft, on a slab. It cost very roughly the same to build as the 2600 sq foot house across the street. Our house is, I suspect, better built, and certainly has a better layout and finishes. More to the point, the single story suits our lifestyle better than the double. How do you put a value on that?

I think the question is basically missing the critical point: one house may be cheaper to build per sq ft than another, but if its a less liveable house then it is far worse value.

The cost of my imaginary homes are always consistent.

I am not trying to be mean, but my experience tells me that hypothetical construction costs are just as useful as hypothetical sandwiches. They are fun to think about, but I wouldn't depend on them too much.

On the house we recently sold, we were concerned about the square footage ballooning to ridiculous proportions. So we cut out the full second floor, added a bit of roof and porch to make it a story and a half (it was a spec home for me).

The fully itemized bid came up $5,460 higher for the story and a half and that was with brick cladding with essentially the same first floor (a few walls may have been moved a few inches). Before the bids came back everyone knew it was a brilliant move to save some money...

What is a "storey"?

No one knows, but I'll tell you this: I have two degrees in language and literature, and sometimes my eyes ache from the slings and arrows befalling the English language.

The cost of my imaginary homes are always consistent.

Good point.

"...I think the question is basically missing the critical point: one house may be cheaper to build per sq ft than another, but if its a less liveable house then it is far worse value..."

Yes, the cheapest price isn't automatically the best value.

She is entirely focused on what may be the most economical house to design and build,

That's entirely silly because the most economical home is almost certainly something on the resale market ... and that doesn't include the value of your time /effort.

This book contains a very good, detailed analysis of this question:

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Houses-Living-Building-Remodeling/dp/0965485617/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=better+houses+better+living&qid=1559341102&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spell#customerReviews

Not to give away the bottom line, but the answer is, "It depends."

The general line tends to be, Two stories are cheaper because they require a smaller footprint and roof -- and those are expensive items.

If land is cheap in your area, a one-story may be cheaper.

Remember that two stories require two HVAC systems, and a staircase takes up square footage that otherwise could've gone to living space.

And it's important to think beyond the question of, "Which is cheaper?" You also need to consider your geography and your family's needs.

Alternate spelling.

Nidnay, that’s only accepted in the UK. In the US, correct spelling is “story.”

Remember that two stories require two HVAC systems,

???

Well, no. I've lived in many a two-story, tri-level, etc. and none has ever possessed two HVAC systems. Even with new systems, it's just not always a necessity. I asked my builder if we'd be better off with two for our new build and he responded that for the design in question a zoned system will work better.

"Story" is the American spelling, true, but "storey" is correct in the rest of the English speaking world, including the UK, Canada and Australia (and India). And while I don't know about "story," I do know some American spellings actually predate modern British spellings. Spelling was pretty flexible until Noah Webster decided to make a clear distinction between American and British English and codified it all in his dictionary. We Canadians are pretty relaxed about using alternate spellings - the only thing I was taught that if you used Americanisms, you used them consistently in whatever you wrote.

If the second story covers only half of the first storey, do you get the best of both worlds??

(spelling intentional)

"D E - that's a pretty good way to figure it for Oklahoma from a framing & foundation only point of view. Stairs, two story interior sections, more exterior walls to insulate and apply exterior finishes to will increase the two story cost, HVAC is more complex, plumbing can go either way depending on location of services and concentration of wet rooms. The two story has to be fairly boxy to maintain a good cost advantage. Homes with lots of offsets, small second levels over large first levels often cost more than single levels in my experience".

where I live in Texas you don't see many new single storey/story homes.

we like houses large and lots small so they have to build up to get the space and still be within lot coverage guidelines.

the more I look into it the more I think the advantage lies with the single level house in our climate with slab on grade foundation.
less square footage is required for the same amount of living area, you can delete a half bathroom, a high r value roof is cheaper than high r value walls, ongoing maintenance cost is lower and resale value is typically higher.

I don't find that to necessarily be true in me area. a new build farther out will almost certainly be cheaper than an existing home closer to town.

also, in my particular situation I cannot find the type of house I want on the amount of land I have for less than what it would cost to build new.

' thanks for that info. slab foundation goes for about $8/ sq ft around here '

That's price is OUTRAGEOUS!!! Where are you CA?

A 2 story house is almost 'always' cheaper to build. That's why track builders always build.

My last slab cost about $10. Heck even a driveway is $6/sqft. And at that price, I can't get contractors to call me back (or my builder).

Supply and demand.

Robin - if you have someone willing to travel to Raleigh at $6 for a driveway, PM me.

DE - what size house? Because that is a really easy question to answer and makes a difference. The 2 HVACs is a pretty big deal also that I had forgotten about. While zoning is an option, it doesn't save much money and is a lot easier to mess up.

$6/foot - me too!

robin0909. what should I be looking to pay? and how does the amount of steel in the foundation impact the price?

David Cary house is 3000 SQ ft approx. this thread is more about costs in general but in my situation one thing I am facing with a two story (I think Bry touched on this earlier- with an open floorplan comes big spans) I was starting to be at 2 ft I joists. not cheap.and a lot of additional wall. maybe some lvl beams, maybe involve an engineer etc a single level design would be easy in comparison.

Also, push comes to shove I know we can frame a one story ourselves.we wouldn't be even consider framing a two story

A 2 story house is almost 'always' cheaper to build. That's why track builders always build.

I am sorry to be confrontational, but I have to question your reason for posting, as you seem to constantly demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the subjects you are commenting on.

The word you are looking for is tract and not track, which is important in this instance because tract means an area of land. Tract builders typically have two profit streams, developing land and selling upgrades. A tract builder can buy land at $20,000 per acre, spend another $15,000 per acre developing utilities and roads and divide the lots up to yield 5 lots per acre which they sell for $30,000 per lot.

The reason that tract builders favor two story homes is because they use smaller lots. The footprint size is far more important than the house cost. If you look at a tract builders' spec builds, you will discover that they put a one story on about every lot that is large enough for a one story. You can sort by age in Zillow and give it a shot, find a tract builder out there who puts a two story house on a .25 acre lot.

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

Furthermore, looking at a tract builder to make decisions about your build, is a lot like looking at an Indycar race to calculate drive time somewhere. You wouldn't want to emulate their build, nor could you if you wanted.

"If you look at a tract builders' spec builds, you will discover that they put a one story on about every lot that is large enough for a one story. You can sort by age in Zillow and give it a shot, find a tract builder out there who puts a two story house on a .25 acre lot"

ran this search for my county just out of curiosity - just searched new construction over .25 acre.

46 two story and 43 one story

I give you all credit for even trying. At a certain point it's just white noise.

Thanks for the popcorn MWM. I made martinis for anyone who wants one.

If you have the gin out anyway, CP, I'd prefer a Park Avenue...

@Becky, thought you’d be asking for clear smoke free skies to sit and stare..

So, for those who have dealt with this - is a slab foundation two storey actually less expensive than a one storey?

I haven't actually done the whole building-a-custom-house thing, but I did a brief exercise recently that involved taking one of my favorite amateur plans (my self-designed Atrium house) and redesigning it into a 2-story.

It sucked.

lol

My original plan is 3800 sqft. The 2-story ended up being nearly 5000. :-O And my inner courtyard shrank to a depressing size. So, considering the upgrades that I personally would require to live happily in a 2-story house (a manual rope-and-pulley dumbwaiter, stairs with storage under every tread, master upstairs *and* master down), it's totally cheaper for me to go 1-story. ;-)

trying, the air wasn't bad here today (Thursday the sun glowed red when we were able to see it) but we're about 900 km/600 miles away from the fires. We're looking forward to the promise of cooler temperatures and some rain after the weekend and hope High Level gets the same asap.

But in June with any extra time leftover after farming, I'd rather be gardening than sitting and staring -- much better to have that milkshake or martini to go lol.

"My original plan is 3800 sqft. The 2-story ended up being nearly 5000. :-O And my inner courtyard shrank to a depressing size. So, considering the upgrades that I personally would require to live happily in a 2-story house (a manual rope-and-pulley dumbwaiter, stairs with storage under every tread, master upstairs and master down), it's totally cheaper for me to go 1-story. ;-)"

lol. yeah a one level works better for you for sure :)

DE......where ARE you? It can vary dramatically across the country.

I'm in the Dallas fort Worth metroplex.

If your lot allows 3000 sqft ranch on a slab, I think I would do that. The true comparable is about 3200 sqft 2 story. With slab construction, your costs are similar. Ranches have a lot of benefits - sound separation being a big one. And of course accessibility. Much easier to design shading of windows with overhangs or trees.

When you try to figure costs, a larger footprint means more landscaping. That may be zero dollars for you or it may be a lot more. You also have to clear more area of the lot - again likely zero in your area. In my jurisdiction, I pay a monthly fee based on impervious surface (in the water bill) which is unlikely in your area - an added cost for a ranch.

I think people enter these thought processes and assume that it is similar in different areas. Your foundation costs of $24k for a 3000 sqft ranch is very low. And then you have little masonry costs to wrap it. When you count masonry, I think most people face double to triple that cost. So that strongly favors 2 story costs.

Now $24k for a roof seems high. Is that counting framing?

What are your potential stair costs? Carpeted stairs with drywall railings could be $2k while wood with ornamental balusters could be $10k.

Does a ranch mean 1 HVAC system for you? It is certainly doable at 3000 sqft. Do you have quotes? In my area, a modest system is $10k for a ranch (with single) and $15k for a 2 story (with 2 untis). Very roughly - NC. More expensive than DFW construction but relatively low COLA.

When considering designing and building a custom home, there are many things to consider. IMO, the first and most important thing to consider may be "how do we want to live?" and what are the important elements which the new house must include and/or address.

If these can be included in both a single level and a multi-level house, then consider both types of houses.

But...in many cases, it may be that only a single level or a multi-level house will suffice. In that case, it's a waste of time, and a frustrating exercise, to consider both types of houses.

Get your ducks in a row before going too far...!

David Cary,

good post. and all good points. in my case the single storey with the same program(minus one powder room) is 220 SQ ft less.

land area is 76000 SQ ft so not a factor in the decision.

the quote I got from the guy who did my current metal roof was about 20k for a roof of about 40 squares(plan had a large overhang). quotes I've received for slab foundation are anywhere from $8-$10 psf

I think I will need a couple of ducted mini splits or maybe one large conventional ducted heat pump.

putting solar panels will be a little more challenging from a shading perspective, a little easier from an installation persepctive

the single storey does provide better shading. fortunate and unfortunate- fortunate for shading, unfortunate for solar panels

I am getting the distinct feeling that this whole thread is an example, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, of someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The insistence on a house design being driven by the cost per square foot, and not by the family's needs and lifestyle, is comparable to buying an expensive pair of shoes because they're on sale without checking the size. It's no cost saving if the shoes don't fit.

If the second story covers only half of the first storey, it could look like a shoe.

If it looks like a shoe, then I need to live in it, since I have so many children I don't know what to do.

@ jmm1837

The insistence on a house design being driven by the cost per square foot, and not by the family's needs and lifestyle, ...

Why is that. Let's say you want to build an extension 13' wide for a good kitchen "that your family needs". Now extra trusses have 24" spacing so 13' would require 7, 4x8 flooring would give you 3x4= 12 or 2x8 = 16' same with drywall, and studs math don't work out either 13x12"/16 = 9.75. In this case may be going 14' would be more cost effective...

DE asked a hypothetical question what is more cost effective 1 story vs 2. In the areas where you have to have a BASEMENT THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS. In the area where you just have slab on a grade with no frost wall and plenty of lot, no need to raise 1st floor - it appears 1st is cheaper. Of course all depends..

If you've followed DE's threads, she's persistent in focusing on "value engineering" without recognizing the simple point that a house that doesn't work for the family isn't "value," no matter how cheap it might be to build. If a house on the slab works better for the family, then a two story house is not better value, even if its a little cheaper to build (and vice versa, of course.) In the example I gave above, my single story house is much better value than an equally priced two story with 600 more sq ft because it works better for us. Cost and value are not the same thing.

jmm can you please leave this thread?. you are not adding anything of value and your input is distracting from the topic at hand.

also, I question the wisdom of choosing to quote Oscar Wilde in regards to price and value when he famously lived lavishly and died penniless.

"
DE asked a hypothetical question what is more cost effective 1 story vs 2. In the areas where you have to have a BASEMENT THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS. In the area where you just have slab on a grade with no frost wall and plenty of lot, no need to raise 1st floor - it appears 1st is cheaper. Of course all depends.."

thanks BT.

you and others like David Cary have helped answer the question I was asking.
thanks.

Let's say you want to build an extension 13' wide for a good kitchen "that your family needs". Now extra trusses have 24" spacing so 13' would require 7, 4x8 flooring would give you 3x4= 12 or 2x8 = 16' same with drywall, and studs math don't work out either 13x12"/16 = 9.75. In this case may be going 14' would be more cost effective...

I disagree that what you are describing is cost effective, even if it is cost efficient. While the difference may be subtle, it is important.

Cost efficient is a decrease in the overall cost per unit. We could use more bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, garage spaces, etc. It is a good metric to consider, but is not the only thing to consider.

Cost effective is an increase in utility for the cost. This is akin to the retail philosophy of monitoring profit per square foot. Essentially, every square foot that isn't making you a profit is wasted square footage. In a home it could be thought of as every square footage that doesn't add utility is wasted.

From a cost standpoint, things are good when the marginal utility added is higher than the marginal cost to add it, without considering how efficient it is. However, efficient will obviously come into play as higher units at lower cost often means higher utility per dollar, but not always.

E.g. I purchased some adhesive from Lowes today, a gallon was $15 and a 3.5 gallons was $40. Purchasing 3.5 gallons would be 24% more cost efficient, but would have been about $25 less cost effective.

In your 14' versus 13' example, even if it only cost $50 more, it isn't cost effective unless you get more than $50 of utility. Which is easy to do in that case, but if you make every decision like that you can end up with a $2,000,000 home that lives just like a $200,000 home.

-----

The housing market is pretty inefficient (switching over to economic efficiency now), and despite what most people will tell you, it is pretty easy to find arbitrage in the housing market if you know what to look for. I believe DE is trying to accomplish this by getting more house with less money. Which is great, it is something I too have done, but the focus needs to be on more utility for less money rather than simply reducing cost, and that does change things.

I have done it purely for resale, and so I go through the design a few square feet at a time and ask is there any way to increase profit out of that square footage, because profit is my utility. This can get me very different answers than the efficient question. For example, regardless how I feel about commercial kitchen appliances, I am not getting to the $700k mark without them, so even though they are incredibly cost inefficient, they are incredibly cost effective.

-----

I completely agree that there was nothing wrong with this question, and have addressed it accordingly. I disagree that jmm1837's answers have been anything other than on point, but that is my 2 cents.

"DE asked a hypothetical question what is more cost effective 1 story vs 2?"

2 story

(that of course is a hypothetical answer)

@bry911 Thank you for taking the time to write up that detailed answer. I’m not in the market for a new house right now, self-built or otherwise, but cost efficiency versus cost effectiveness is something I’ve never studied or read about. You’ve given me a starting base of knowledge on this topic that I can apply to many other decisions besides home buying, and you’ve given me enough vocabulary that I’ll be able to find more to study about this.

To all who bravely wade into threads and share your knowledge and expertise, thank you! Even if it doesn’t help the original poster, others of us are learning.

I have to go with Bry on this one. JMM's comments are actually to the point and applicable, even if you don't like them. I think we can all give anecdotes that demonstrate the difference between cost and value. However, we're all guilty of conflating the two, especially when it regards something we do not ourselves prioritize. Or something we do not ourselves understand. I, for instance, am likely to choose a less expensive sound system made up mostly of wireless speakers. I'm not enough of an audiophile to value a more expensive system and I know enough to be aware that since I mostly stream music, a higher quality delivery won't get me more from a lower quality sound source. I DO value fresh air and light, so I'm willing to spend more to get more windows in a new build. I'm even willing to consider spending a little more YET, for the pull down screens so I don't have even that little bit of light blocked a lot of the time.

"a two storey has half the foundation and half the roof but almost 2x the wall area"

Once again an exaggerated claim leads to a pointless discussion.

The only way a 2 story house would have "almost 2X the wall area" of a 1 story house is if it had almost 2X the floor area. A more accurate comparison would be almost 1.4X.

The driving force behind such questions appears to be a stubborn desire to solve complex problems without the use of imagination.

bry911, let me see if I understand what you're saying.

say I want an r60 roof.

cost effective would be getting the r60 roof. I can save money by going down to r38 but that was not effective because I didn't achieve my stated goal.

cost efficient would be comparing all the ways to get an r60 roof and choosing the lowest cost one (all factors considered)

and value would be getting an r60 roof for x but choosing to get an r120 roof instead because the price was 1.2x and so the marginal utility was far less than the marginal cost?

D E, you are really close, but from your example I am not certain you are totally there as cost is part of the consideration.

cost effective would be getting the r60 roof. I can save money by going down to r38 but that was not effective because I didn't achieve my stated goal.

That depends on the marginal utility of the r60 roof over an r38 roof, which is something that I can't answer for you. It is less about stated goals than maximizing utility, and utility is a bit individualistic. So for example, if you would prefer an r60 roof, but find that it will only add about 20% more utility to your life than an r38 roof at a cost of 80% more money then it is not cost effective (utility being some combination of comfort and discounted cooling costs).

Thinking about this example in reverse is better. If you only want and need an r38 roof, any marginal cost to get you to an r60 roof is wasted regardless of how great a deal it is.

-----

Looking at what I do from a resale perspective. Let me clarify my meaning of going through the design a few square feet at a time and asking is there any way to increase profit out of that square footage. What I really do is set a target price point, and ask is that square footage (or design element) helping me get to that price point? If the answer is no, then I ask if it can be eliminated? I don't care whether it cost me $20 or $500, if it isn't helping me get to my price point, it is wasted regardless of how much it costs. Obviously, you start at the most expensive stuff, and that is where the efficiency really comes in.

Converting this from resale to living, I ask how will I use that square footage? If the answer is anything similar to I wouldn't, then I see if it can be eliminated. This can be used for square footage, rooms, r value, HVAC, etc.

The challenge of designing and building one's custom home is that it is both quantitative and qualitative. It's relatively easy to put numbers for the quantitative stuff, but more challenging for the qualitatIve stuff. For example, how does one put a cost to "a place to relax and recover from a stressful career", or "a strong indoor-outdoor living linkage"?

These may be just as important or more so to many than, say, an R-38 roof or Hardie board siding.

Of course, thanks to HGTV, many consumers are more attuned to features than they are to the quality of life issues.

It's relatively easy to put numbers for the quantitative stuff, but more challenging for the qualitative stuff.

I agree with this, this is easy for me to do in a house for resale, and much harder (maybe impossible) to accomplish in my own home design.

And this is the major mistake which DE is making: she is unilaterally focusing on the quantifiable stuff, and ignoring any qualitative stuff.

I'm reminded of this very good thread from several years ago,

What are you doing to make your house enrich your life?

Yes, becky, a great thread.

We have never built a house and never will, but we've done extensive remodeling in this house, within the confines of the original footprint and orientation, and they all have enriched our lives.

From the above referenced thread:

mushcreek: "Number One on the list is our setting; the land we have. I suppose it doesn't count, as most people don't have rural acreage. We have a number of large casement windows with no window treatments. Looking out at the woods in all directions is incredibly good for the soul."

And especially this from lilacinjust: "We took on our kitchen redo as a quality of life project, as I suspect many people do. Mostly, the feel and look of it after opening, now that sunshine flows fully from front to back (after taking out a wall which darkened the kitchen) on our main floor, is incredibly uplifting and a far more proper way to start our days, enjoy our view and bring light into our lives."

That description of a kitchen remodel is exactly what we did and for exactly the same reason: "a quality of life project."

I'm not sure how one would quantify that.

Thanks to beckysharp for her link to the thread on how a home enriches your life.