|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > August 2006 > 2 story construction in the south
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
2 story construction in the south
|
|
|
| I hear that a 2 story is more economical to build than a 1 story. Does
any know this to be correct and if so, why? We will be building in
arkansas on a crawl space foundation.
| |
|
| Simple. One half the foundation and one half the roof.
"jess" <pikejessica@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156295935.083631.193940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>I hear that a 2 story is more economical to build than a 1
> story. Does any know this to be correct and if so, why?
> We will be building in arkansas on a crawl space
> foundation.
| |
| Nehmo Sergheyev 2006-08-23, 3:25 am |
| That's oversimplifying. The stairs take up space on both levels. The
stairs are expensive and labor-intensive to build. Accidents frequently
occur on stairs.It's inefficient to do projects that span both levels.
Exterior house maintenance is easier on a one-story. ladders are
dangerous. The higher roof is more expensive pre unit to work on.
Unless the land is in short supply, build one-story.
--
(||) Nehmo (||)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn wrote:
> Simple. One half the foundation and one half the roof.
| |
|
| Yes, cheaper to build for reason given--the most expensive part of
house construction is the foundation and roof. Also less realestate is
used, a combination of factors that has led to the boom in postage
stamp properties having huge two story houses, and ultimately crowded
street parking. Unfortunately, heating and cooling is not cheaper and
certainly more difficult to obtain comfortably in all parts of the
house. I'm a single story house person myself, although our split
level home does have a pleasant variation that breaks the monotony
underfoot. But staircases are a burnout, especially for older folk.
Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:[color=darkred]
> That's oversimplifying. The stairs take up space on both levels. The
> stairs are expensive and labor-intensive to build. Accidents frequently
> occur on stairs.It's inefficient to do projects that span both levels.
> Exterior house maintenance is easier on a one-story. ladders are
> dangerous. The higher roof is more expensive pre unit to work on.
>
> Unless the land is in short supply, build one-story.
> --
> (||) Nehmo (||)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Glenn wrote:
| |
| Grumman-581 2006-08-26, 1:25 pm |
| On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:35:39 GMT, "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr.com> wrote:
> Simple. One half the foundation and one half the roof.
But then you add in the cost of the floor joists to 2nd floor... It is
more economical, but you don't get to just subtract off a half of the
cost of the foundation and the roof...
One particular advantage of a single story is that it makes it a lot
easier to add things like outlets, network connections, and such at a
later date if needed... Even better is the raised houses like you see
along some waterfront properties that allow the entire ground floor
area to be for covered parking or a workshop... As an added bonus,
during floods, you can just tie your boat up to your front porch...
<grin>
| |
| RicodJour 2006-08-26, 9:25 pm |
| Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> That's oversimplifying. The stairs take up space on both levels. The
> stairs are expensive and labor-intensive to build. Accidents frequently
> occur on stairs.It's inefficient to do projects that span both levels.
> Exterior house maintenance is easier on a one-story. ladders are
> dangerous. The higher roof is more expensive pre unit to work on.
>
> Unless the land is in short supply, build one-story.
Your explanation has such a one-sided viewpoint that it's ironic that
you accuse Glenn of oversimplifying.
R
|
|
|
|
|