Cheaper to Build Up?

[jhambley]

I'm trying to build a small home office as inexpensively as possible. Is it cheaper to build up?

Would it be cheaper to build a three story something like this instead of a ranch/2 story of equal size?

I'm in the country on 20 acres with no building restrictions. I look forward to your comments.

[Shelley]

You know, ordinarily I would jump in a say "of course" and talk about foundations and roofs.

However, just recently, I read a blurb that indicated that this was not necessarily so.

Now, where did I read that and what specific points did they make? :-/

Way  cool little pic.  I'm a sucker for hip roofs.

[Bart_Cubbins]

If the two structures are of equal size, then each floor of the 3-storey building would be 2/3 the area of each floor of the 2-storey building. So as Shelley suggested, your roof and foundation areas would be smaller, so you'd save on materials. You might also save a bit on foundation labour. I don't think you'd save anything on roofing labour given the added difficulties of working at that height.

On the other hand...

The 3-storey dwelling would require two full flights of stairs versus just one, eating up some of that floor area. The smaller the dwellings' floor area, the more significant the lost floor area is. Stairs aren't cheap either.

The 3-storey dwelling would require additional wall area. Let's assume both buildings are square, as the tower seems to be, and that they are each 1200 sq ft. The 2-storey has two floors of 600 sq ft, each a square of 24.5 ft on a side. Total wall length is 24.5 x 4 x 2 = 196 ft. The 3-storey has three floors of 400 sq ft. Total wall length is 20 x 4 x 3 = 240 ft, or 22% more. Also the 3-storey will require much more scaffold work to side and finish the walls (not to mention the on-going maintenance).

All in all, my advice is to just go for the design you like. If the tower will give you great views, or you just like the idea of living in a tower, then build the tower. If you just want to save money, I doubt you'll save much if any.

just one person's opinion,
Bart

[Dan]

On the other hand...
The 3-storey dwelling would require additional wall area. Let's assume both buildings are square, as the tower seems to be, and that they are each 1200 sq ft. The 2-storey has two floors of 600 sq ft, each a square of 24.5 ft on a side. Total wall length is 24.5 x 4 x 2 = 196 ft. The 3-storey has three floors of 400 sq ft. Total wall length is 20 x 4 x 3 = 240 ft, or 22% more. Also the 3-storey will require much more scaffold work to side and finish the walls (not to mention the on-going maintenance).

Interesting analysis Bart.  I had thought of the stairs, but had not thought of the wall length.  Extrapolating to a single story, the 1200 sq ft home becomes 34.5 feet square, or total wall length of 138 feet, roughly 30% less then the two story.  Oh, and no loss of stair space unless you have a basement.

I agree with your recommendation to build what looks good to you.

[JRR]

In a multi-storey design, you may want to consider putting the stairway "external" to the main structure...with an external entrance door with adequate landing at each floor.   Of course you probably would want it enclosed.   With ample window area it can be pretty dramatic.   This would conserve the main floor space area and give each floor more privacy and sound isolation from the rest of the building (desirable in an office building?).

Another plus would be better ventilation control as the "chimney" is eliminated.

[Pat]

I am planning to build a house. My wife and are pretty much set on 2 story. less roof and foundation per sq ft., but I would not want to attempt a 3 story.

We will have three story if you count the basement, but the logistics of going for three stories looks like it would be out of my league.

Of course if you wanted a view, you could do some sort of a cupola or bubble at the top.

[John Raabe]

That's a very nice design.

Generally the argument goes that a multi story design makes one roof and one foundation work harder and is therefore more cost effective. That is generally true, but as the total SF gets smaller the stairway begins to eat up more and more of the usable space. (Stairways use about the same floor area in a big house as a small one.)

I would guess that the building shown is about 14' on each side. Thats 196sf on each floor (169sf usable) and the stair will take about 60sf out of each level.

Subtract out the stair and I get about a 16x22 single story house with the same usable SF.

While I'd rather live in the tower (as long as the knees hold out :-/) — I'll bet the single story cottage would cost less.

[Jerry]

Thank you all for your helpful comments.

The plan calls for a 22' by 22' square. We would like to increase it to 24' by 24'. We like the idea of the "tower" overlooking the 2 acre pond we built last fall on 20 acres.

Again, thanks for your help evaluating this design.

[glenn kangiser]

The way that tower is designed if the stair well was at the back you could insulate it and use it for a cooling tower on the back and the glass thermal chimney on the front- depending on where it was, how  it was facing and if you needed that type of cooling.  Slightly raised attic could be air intake with wet pads -cool air down the stair well- up the front and out windows or vents.  Add a water pump for the pads and whole house fan --instant swamp cooler.  Just a thought .

[John Raabe]

I can see the 24'x24' version of this being worked up quite easily in 3DHA. I would use full span I-joists that run opposite directions at each floor so the foundation has Max. only 2 floor loads and the roof (standard 2-story foundation).

Add a nice shed porch roof and decks and PRESTO!

Anybody want to help subsidize a new plan? (This is how Victoria's cottage, the Grandfather cottage and Builder's cottage each came about. A reduced fee on a custom design.) Anybody who does this gets to name the house!

Send me an email if interested - jraabe@countryplans.com

[DavidLeBlanc]

I recall reading that the downside of going up is increased construction costs on the 2nd and higher floors. Scaffolding costs and liablitly insurance costs both go higher as I recall. I don't have a clue as to how much the offset in lower foundation and roof costs offset those.

[Greenbank]

If you want to check out the floor plan, you can see it here:

http://www.slhouseplans.com/main.asp?action=plandetail&planid=21199

It's neat. For us, I can see an office on the ground floor, and the normal living spaces upstairs. Or if you're a devotee of the "Not So Big" house thing, the bottom floor could be the away space for someone.

As I'm planning on a semi-decent sized barn on our property (not outrageous, maybe 60' x 30') I wonder if a tower like this could provide a visual relationship with the barn like a silo does in a traditional farmyard scene.

[Greenbank]

I also meant to add I wonder if this would be better looking (albeit more complicated to build) with battered walls? It's not bad now, but it would be interesting to see.

[Amanda_931]

I had to look up battered!

(built so that the bottom is bigger than the top, like stone, cob--or very old glass according to a novel I read recently)

There's a guy in California selling water tower plans that can go up far high enough to give you real water pressure.  They can be used as buildings as well.  2nd URL down is a lookout tower instead of a water tank, but it's 40 feet in the air.

http://www.water-towers.com/