I am wondering if there is a simple answer to a complicated question. I would like to build a new house, but I am limited in funds…hence, I would like to get the largest area for the least money. Is a two-story house more economical in terms of $/square foot? I don’t like two story houses (I don’t like staircases), and ranch-style house appeals more. However, for a given area, will a ranch cost MORE money?
Also, is a three-story house worth it? or does the staircases take up too much room?
My copy of Marshall & Swift says a full second story costs 92% per square foot as the first story, and that this would also apply to a third story (/SF of First Floor X 0.92 = /SF of second and third floors). Three stories seems like the chief drawback would be walking up two flights of stairs, rather than problems with efficiency.
You’ll also want a house shape that is as regular as possible (for example, a square). More weirdness in the shape means more exterior wall area, which means more money per given square foot. A fairly low-pitched roof and standard ceiling heights are also a must. A garage is out of the question if money is a real concern. If possible, you could probably economize on land prices by going out into the boonies and digging a well and using a septic tank. This may not be feasible in your location, of course.
There are, of course, any number of ways to scrimp on construction materials costs, but one thing to keep in mind is that a little more money in durable, energy efficient components will pay dividends, while a shoddily built home is going to cost you lots of money in the not very distant future.
I am not a builder, however, and you’ll want the opinion of one before you get too far into this.
desdinova
general real estate appraiser
Depending on where you live, look into Rammed earth construction. Here are a few links to peruse:
http://www.hahaha.com.au/rammed.earth/links.htm
(Don’t let the URL scare you. It has nothing to do with the Ha ha ha Snow White virus but they did pick a stupid name for their URL.)
http://www.adobe-home.com/html/about_rammed_earth.html
Buy or rent a film of rammed earth construction: Rammed Earth Construction | Bullfrog Films
http://www.hahaha.com.au/rammed.earth/Default.asp
http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?TrackID=&CategoryID=1402&DocumentID=2142
And then there’s this guy who calls his house a “cardboard yurt”.
Believe it or not, THIS HOUSE is made of cardboard.
Rammed earth costs more than stick, so not great if the cost is the primary driver.
Realistically, the cheapest building method is the common one in the area. Anything unusual either incurs extra expense by having to import specialized people to do it, or extra expense due to inexperienced people screwing it up.
Sweat equity is dirt cheap, though.
A simple answer? How about a house that every carpenter can build, but few people want. My guess is that you’re probably looking at a simple gable-roofed box with minimal foundation (slab in the South, I don’t know about the North), vinyl siding and linoleum floors.
Instead of putting a whole lot of sweat equity into something esoteric like rammed earth (especially if hard work tires you), you may want to look for someone who manufactures shell homes, where you finish out the interior. This would get your home “into the dry” quickly, and let you save on finishing costs.
BTW, I’ve had a few people recommend House Broken: How I Remodeled My Home for Just Under Three Times the Original Bid, by Richard Karn, as a guide for anyone building or doing home improvement. I haven’t bought it, but it sounds like a good suggestion.
What about straw bale?
Depending on where you live, how handy you are, your ability and willingness to learn new tricks, etc:
See if there are any builders who will deliver a sealed shell home - the exterior walls are up, the doors and windows are in, the roof is on and shingled. From there it is a negotiation - youwant them to do the interior (non-load bearing) walls, or can you bang the 2x4’s together yourself? Know how to handle headers and fireblocks? How about plumbing - you will probably get the DWV instaled, but how about supply? Feel like instaling a water heater, and running all the supply lines (HINT: use copper, don’t wait until the next problem with plastic pipes becomes known (imho))
Kitchen and bath cabinets? counters? set a tub? all this can be done by:
Original contractor
You
Somebody you hire (a general contractor makes about 10% on the labor he/she hires out) (conversely, a laborer ay cut a deal with a high-volume contractor that isn’t available to homeowner/builder.
Another low-cost option (if you can find anyone who will deal with them - contractors view them as a threat, and don’t like to touch them): Pre-fab Homes - the trick here is that it is cheaper to built a chunk of wall in a factory than to build it on-site. You will need a slab poured, and a crew to bank everything together, but when you’re done, there is little to distinguish between it an a stick-built house.
Unless, of course, the contractor specializes in this. This is a great, low cost idea. If you’re handy, you can also especially buy these unfinished or partially finished. We’re not talking about “trailers” (mobile homes) here, but bona fide houses built out of the same stuff and to the same specifications as a “real” house.
It used to be that these were called modulars, but now a lot of the trailer builders are calling their trailers modulars, too. So, watch out.
Don’t knock the “trailers” too much - at least around here. For the most part, there is considered a difference in “modular” and “manufactured” homes…
That said, visit a dealer and walk out with a few floor plans. “Manufactured” homes are models of efficiency for space and materials…take one of those floor plans and apply standard materials and foundation and you’ll come out WAY ahead of building and designing a typical custom home.
Either prarie sod house or single-room log cabin, dependind on the propensity of trees on your property.
(Well he didn’t say 2004 MODERN house, did he?)
Recent Architecture school grad here. Straw Bale would be very cheap monitarily. But good luck finding workers. Sweat Equity is VERY high and it’s not pleasant. The advantage of straw bale is that it is VERY ecologically friendly throughout the life of the house. Massive walls help your interior temperature stay relatively constant. If you do choose straw bale make absolutely 100% sure your straw is 100% dry or it could spontaneously compust after you plaster it. Do your research. It’s not hard to do, but it’s not pleasant. You could train day-laborers to do it without too much difficulty, provided they are willing to do it.
If straw bale is not an option there are other options. Spare tires for example. Fill 'em with stuff like aluminum cans and concrete. Again, environmentally friendly. But I would wonder about the cost. Tires are cheap, but concrete is expensive compared to stick framing.
Rammed earth is expensive, (specialized labor intensive) but probably the best, IMHO. When I can afford it, my house will be rammed earth, or completely underground. I haven’t decided yet.
For these alternative methods you have to worry about city codes. Some municipalities might have a problem with straw bale, because it can catch fire all on its own.
Really stick (2x4) framing is probably your best best monetarily. It’s the most popular for a reason. It’s easy to build, easy to modify, intuitive. You can hire just about anybody to do it. You don’t have to train your workers. I’m not so sure more stories are cheaper, though I could be wrong. The real advantage in value is the smaller footprint. If you have the land, and don’t like stairs, go one story. That’s my recommendation. The other recommendations already discussed in the thread are pretty valid too.
If you do (much of) the work yourself you would be suprised how cheap you can build a “standard” house. Some things you have to legally contract out, electrical for example. But you can definately do the framing yourself. One of my friend’s Dad built a house just off of Lake Houston himself. About 3000 sf. Two stories. Total cost including a good sized plot of land (IIRC), about $60,000.
What about a geodesic dome design? I was under the impression that these homes tended to be rather inexpensive, energy efficient, and comparatively fast to build. Due to the design you also get a LOT of internal volume, meaning that the house feels larger than a traditional design of the same square footage. Check out this FAQ from domehomes.com.
I was just having that thought. And prisoner6655321’s opinion is pretty sound.
“With its mass and super-insulation properties, a straw bale structure has 10 times the insulation properties of double brick walls. … Graham shows a house that was built in three weekends, except for the parts such as electricity installation that licensed tradesmen were required to complete. ‘Wall-building is extremely fast. There’s not much need for training - one weekend of working with someone else or doing a straw-bale course and you’re away. The councils are not really a problem any more. Early on they were dubious about it, but now straw bale is a well-recognised medium.’”
[site: http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s257545.htm]
I would say that is the cheapest by far. But if you want a large interior, you might need a of a larger block, or sacrifice your lawn.
Here is a link to Jim Walter Homes, which will build, on your prepared lot, a shell for you to finish on up to a complete home. I have no experience with them other than touring a few models years ago.
This is called SIP (structural insulated panel) construction and is a good way to go (although it has its detractors). The manufacturer can build a house to your specification, deliver the panels to the site and erect the house in about 30 days (depending on size). Here is one company that makes them and answers some questions you may have.
Not a wise choice if there are wolves in the area. 
As desdinova pointed out but didnt really touch on why, two story construction is a lot more complex (therefore more costly) than single.
First the ground floor needs to be built much stronger if it is to support more than just a roof. We’re talking load bearing structures that can carry an entire second house, occupants and all. The foundation is also going to need to be more substantial, and if you’re in earthquaque country forget it, the additional building cost will outweigh any land cost savings. Unless you plan to build on million dollar an acre real estate.
Plumbing a second story involves situating soil stacks and venting to avoid back pressure and flooding so floor planning is critical.
Floor joists are generally wider as they have to span a greater distance without support and wider means more expensive as far as lumber is concerned.
Etc. Etc you get the picture. People generally build multi story houses to get the max living space out of the land they have not because it it cheaper to do so.
Remember money spent on a house is not really spent. It’s like you loan it to yourself. In most cases lately (around here anyway) a house in good condition sells for far more than it was bought for.
I know, not too usefull if you don’t have the cash now, but still something to consider before you go and build a house out of dung bricks or whatever.
Actually, what I said (well, typed) was that each square foot of gross living area on the second (or third) floor costs only 92% of what it costs on the first floor, according to my Marshall & Swift cost manual. So if you’ve got a 3,000 SF home that costs $100/SF of GLA, and it’s one story, it costs $300,000 to build. But if it’s evenly split between two stories, the cost is 1,500 X $100 + 1,500 X $92 = $288,000. I can only assume this is the case, because all I’ve got is my cost manual to tell me so, but M&S hasn’t steered me wrong yet. I always assumed this was because the money saved on a smaller floor plate is greater than the costs associated with strengthening the frame, floor joists, etc.
I assume this has not been your experience?