Cost comparison: reinforced concrete + ETICS vs. brick or wall + ETICS

But there are also structural engineers of the overly cautious type. A second opinion is not such a bad idea in that case.

there is always an alternative, which just isn't obvious to you as a layperson

Your nonsensical condescending babble from above is also coupled with your assumption that everyone here is a layperson. You, on the other hand, certainly seem to be one, otherwise you would also be aware that with your statements here, if you present yourself as a civil engineer, you are fully liable without insurance coverage.

Hello everyone, thanks for the lively discussion and I am still reading along

So to explain: The statement of the structural engineer ("reinforced concrete would probably be the most sensible due to the window openings") was made to our architect after the structural engineer had had the plans for about one or two weeks. How much concrete calculation went into it is debatable. It seemed more like a statement after the first closer look at the plans. However, since we would probably end up in unfavorable cost ranges regarding the shell construction costs, I wanted to inquire about the costs of the alternatives compared to reinforced concrete.

Thanks in any case for the opinions. Our architect has another appointment with the structural engineer soon and will address exactly that. There is also talk of "skelettieren" to save costs (i.e. steel/reinforced concrete as supports and the rest masonry).

As far as the exterior wall surface is concerned, the costs for such large windows are anyway higher than those of the wall per unit area. Which would also be the potential savings. The structural engineer will usually calculate a support anyway and offer reinforced concrete as well as a masonry solution to choose from. The structural engineer will not care at all; it can also be a steel support embedded in the masonry. It is always a support because standard masonry cannot bear the increased (point) compressive load. Especially if construction is to be done without [WDVS], since the load-bearing capacity and storage capacity strongly decrease with the insulating ability of masonry units. See aerated concrete or hollow bricks.

after the structural engineer had the plans for one or two weeks. How much concrete calculation went into it is debatable.

If I were a structural engineer, I would probably do it the same way: roughly review plans that you can only really look at the week after next, to note impulses before the exact calculation about which alternative could be less complex. At least in a long-term client relationship of the architect, I would probably handle it that way. You asked about

- reinforced concrete plus plastered ETICS - brick (monolithic) plus plaster - masonry (e.g., sand-lime brick) plus plastered ETICS

... and here I see a brick pillar merely structurally as possibly an adequate alternative to the concrete pillar or the steel column; in terms of compatibility with the Energy Saving Ordinance, however, with the difference that the other two options would always be with ETICS.

There is also talk of "skeletonizing" to save costs (i.e., steel/reinforced concrete as supports and the rest masonry).

I would never have interpreted it differently: of course, I limit the initial question only to those wall sections that more or less concern only the area of the reveals or lintel supports (or adjacent beam supports). This mix can theoretically also be done with high-density small-format sand-lime bricks as "columns" and porous bricks as "infill" – possibly then also without ETICS – or with steel/concrete, then probably only with ETICS. However, I would like to remind you again of my alternative suggestion to critically review the fenestration for excessiveness. With a non-excessive proportion of windows (and non-structurally adverse positioning of window openings), the measure should usually be largely or completely avoidable.