Masonry - individually planned single-family house construction

Yes, it will be more expensive. Sound sensitivity is also very subjective. I think you can never have too much. I have Poroton monolithic, but I also know aerated concrete. I do find that aerated concrete is somewhat more permeable. I don’t live on a federal road, but in a quiet residential area, yet sometimes I wish I had more soundproofing and don’t consider myself particularly sensitive.

A double-shell probably costs about 30-50k extra. I didn’t have the money for that back then (and also no clue). But if you already have a double-shell, a bit more insulation and a reinforced foundation surely doesn’t cost that much more. You’d have to ask.

But yes, if the general contractor mostly uses aerated concrete 80% of the time, it’s not so good to impose the other stone on him, although those working with aerated concrete usually can do KSS as well. White on white is often built, also because of soundproofing – for that, the KSS is used on the inside.

Thank you very much for the numerous feedbacks!

We were offered the following wall construction:

[*]Interior plaster: machine gypsum plaster of quality class Q2
[*]Load-bearing masonry: 17.5 cm aerated concrete
[*]Insulation: 14.0 cm mineral fiber insulation according to the thermal protection verification
[*]Air layer: 2.0 cm finger gap
[*]Facing brick: 11.5 cm clinker brick in NF format

Now the question for us is: Is an exterior wall with 17.5 cm aerated concrete structurally safe, provided it has been calculated and approved by a structural engineer?

Of course, we also like the monolithic construction method, but overall – especially considering all additional costs – it is significantly more expensive. Furthermore, the monolithic construction only achieves the KfW-55 standard, while the multi-layer system described above enables the KfW-40 standard.

Ultimately, for us not only energy efficiency but also quality and structural safety are decisive. If there are well-founded arguments for the monolithic construction that justify its advantages, we would be willing to accept additional costs for it.

I look forward to further assessments and reports of experience!

I am new here and would like to gather your professional assessments and experiences on a specific topic. We are planning to build a custom-designed single-family house in the Bauhaus style and are currently faced with the decision between two general contractors with different construction methods:

[*]Option 1: Load-bearing masonry made of 17.5 cm aerated concrete, complemented by mineral fiber insulation, a ventilation gap, and a facing made of clinker.
[*]Option 2: Monolithic construction with 36.5 cm aerated concrete PPW2, also with a clinker facade.

Use the weekend, get a little less new here, and learn not only from what we write to you in your thread – paging back and browsing around is worthwhile. Also externally, for example, where you can find "A house building roadmap for you too: the HOAI phase model!" The "Steinemantra of the 11th" is also explained there. I see the following options:
Option U as unwise:
Ask only single questions here. Build your house design backwards, i.e., start with the specification of the building composition and style. Early on, lock yourself into the path of building with a general contractor. Go unadvised to the companies you want to compare. Compare them using the two tools Excel sheet and audience joker.
Option S as smart:
Get comprehensive advice, fill out the questionnaire here, and expose your house design to the winds of discussion. Take a resting period, leave it to the outcome of the initial decisions as to which construction method is the better choice in the specific case. Only then develop the design to build readiness. Do not go to any company without an advisor partial to you (this can also be a freelance architect, or I have mentioned my recommended colleagues here several times). Do not lock yourself from the start on building with a general contractor, but only let GCs participate in your tender. Be glad that the smarter way is at least not more expensive.

But in my personal preference, the ranking would be:
1. Cavity wall
2. Monolithic
3. ETICS or timber frame construction

My ranking would be:
A: Follow the Steinemantra pure
B: Vary the Steinemantra, here e.g. use sand-lime brick or aerated concrete of higher density or thickness instead of aerated concrete
Z: Build the planning backwards from the wall designer.
Whether ETICS or WDIS or monolithic (aerated concrete caliber 365 up to EH55/Building Energy Act, for EH40 probably caliber 425), it will emerge.

I follow the 11th and would go with what is usual in the region and mastered by the shell builders.

I am not quite sure how faithfully you follow the credo of my school. I read here that the GC is not convinced at all by a wall construction (proposed by the architect?). It would be helpful to know what his two favorites and bestsellers actually are.

If Bauhaus and not Hornbach style is really meant here, many GCs would be eliminated anyway or the number of suitable candidates would be significantly reduced. Many GCs hear "Bauhaus style" and then think: "yes, sure, we can combine shoeboxes with flat roofs, what’s so hard about that? – it’s just a roof left out, and then insulation and airtight foil over the top floor ceiling." They also eat gnocchi, drink espressos, and drive Lamborjeannies.

Now the question for us is: Is an exterior wall with 17.5 cm aerated concrete structurally safe, provided it has been calculated and approved by a structural engineer?

I read from this that you have fixated on the general contractor? Ultimately because of the price?

,

After intensive work with Excel and many months of careful analysis, we have identified numerous differences. In the process, we noticed that we may not have given sufficient attention to the important topic of wall construction.

The overall concept is generally more cost-effective, as more points important to us were taken into account. So we have already committed to it in principle but have not yet signed. Therefore, we remain flexible and would like to take the opportunity to review it once more and, if necessary, adjust it before a possible mistake occurs.

Since there are many differing opinions on this – as in almost every trade – I would like to gather your assessment once again.

After intensive work with Excel and many months of careful analysis, we have identified numerous differences. In doing so, we noticed that we may not have paid enough attention to the important topic of wall construction.

Conversely: too much, and procedurally at the wrong place.

The overall concept is more favorable overall because more points important to us were taken into account.

What does that mean in German?