jwhick_07
2020-06-25 21:01:53
- #1
No, but 40+ is an idealistic thing anyway, in my opinion it doesn’t pay off.
That is certainly a sensitive topic as well. We also thought about it for a long time and especially regarding the comparability of both general contractors, we took the 40 Plus standard as a basis. Unfortunately, with Viebrockhaus, it doesn’t work any other way, since they don’t want to deviate from the proven system and the well-rehearsed processes. Which standard would you choose? Where do you see the best price/performance ratio? In any case, we want to build with photovoltaic + battery, so that simply suggested itself. As far as the standard is concerned, I am actually somewhat conflicted in terms of insulation.
Northern Germany is a two-shell region.
I would keep it that way because the companies know how to do it.
I find the Viebrockhaus wall structure strange, 15 cm inner wall is unusual.
Viebrockhaus has some cost items that could become expensive because they are not included.
Are you building in a commuter belt?
We are building about 16 km from Hamburg’s border. Why Viebrockhaus builds such a “thin” inner shell, I cannot say, I did not question that. Which costs do you see as critical? I am currently still in exchange with our product manager and trying to query the open cost items. Unfortunately, Viebrockhaus has difficulty estimating the exact costs or prefers to discuss them only after the construction contract. I find this concerning. Ideally, I want to have more information about the incidental building costs before I put my signature on the line.
There are already many opinions here, so one more or less does not matter.
I would go as far as to say that a proper drywall construction is not only “not inferior” but actually clearly superior to such a supposedly massive solution with aerated concrete, both regarding sound insulation and the mounting of (heavier) furniture in a hanging manner.
Why one builds two-shell only to plaster afterwards – standard with Viebrockhaus – escapes me. A well-done ETICS is certainly also okay, which then especially includes a high-quality plaster. If one does not like that, that is something else, but to create a preference for the two-shell construction from the fact that “it has always been done like that in the north” I consider wrong. In any case, I would rather go for sand-lime brick instead of aerated concrete if insulation is needed anyway.
Last but not least: (I have already written this here several times.) You can create Excel or Calc or Numbers spreadsheets until you turn black, but that will not reveal which offer is better (i.e., cheaper with the same performance). Too much depends on the very specific execution, and no construction description in the world provides that level of detail. For you, the decision should be: Do you feel more comfortable with the big established building giant or rather with the smaller regional – possibly family-run – provider? Assuming neither supplier botches the job, both will deliver a decent house, probably also at very similar prices. (Differences < 10,000 EUR according to the offer I would consider negligible.)
At the risk of digging my own grave, but why is it such a negative topic to go with plaster on a two-shell masonry in the end? Unfortunately, I am not so deep into the subject.