Why building a house almost always costs more than calculated

We should make a list of who is over by how much We haven't started building yet and current status: +110,000 EUR.

Regards, Steffen

We were pretty much exactly 11% over plan, if I don't take the carport and garden shed into account.

If I had let everything run and not always actively found *some* clever solutions, it would have easily been 20%+x.

In both cases, the builder really can do nothing to prevent it. These are risks that can occur.

Yes – again, I agree with your good posts. Sometimes you are powerless – it just is that way. Especially regionally different. In terms of all costs. Fell-Bert, for example, is extremely expensive when it comes to connections. I thought my pipes must be made of gold, with platinum and diamond inlays. Far from it. Completely normal...... I lost a lot of money, almost 10k, planned were 5.5k. Of course my stupidity (so much for intelligence, I could have asked, but I thought (but here it gets difficult), it could (could is always bad) fit.....so, if you think it might: Stop: Ask people who know, then keep calculating).

The biggest problems for me were the municipality, authorities (building delays without end because of that), and the ground conditions. Soil surveys are great to read, but they only drill at 4 spots......lol. Slate seams and rocks can lie anywhere. And they lie everywhere.
Neighbors next door had that across the entire plot. Others, 80 m further, only had mud; they had other problems.

ALWAYS: Plan 10-15k over the buffer as a buffer-buffer, absolutely. Something *always* goes wrong (only solvable with money). I had a good buffer and still needed about 30k more. The money just rushes through your fingers when you build.

A lot goes out of the cash flow, but you have to be careful. After lamps and stuff, we also ate nothing but dry bread with recycled margarine for four weeks in October 14.

Each to their own. But I would never in my life think of building a house like that..

7. "A house without a walk-in shower is social housing"

Can someone please explain to me what is so much more expensive about a floor-level shower? I mean - sure, I know what you're getting at. Seeing and being seen. What they have, I must have too. But I somehow find the example of a floor-level shower as a cost driver to be wrong. floor-level shower: The substrate may need to be specially prepared before tiling (possibly - but bathrooms have to be built "waterproof" anyway). Slip-resistant tiles should be used (are they really that much more expensive?). A drainage channel is installed in the floor. If the tiled area is planned a bit larger, you usually don’t need a shower door (at least we don’t have one). Shower tray/pan: A shower tray must be purchased. Often a shower door is installed in front of it because otherwise it splashes too much (I think very few builders still use the good old shower curtain). A drain is also installed (possibly a bit cheaper than the drainage channel). The base of the shower tray is also tiled. If you don’t buy a shower cabin (even more expensive), you have to tile the partition walls just like with a floor-level shower. Where is the actual cost advantage compared to a floor-level shower? PS: However, I am an absolute layman in such matters - so I could be completely wrong.

...in October 14, we also first ate black bread with recycled margarine for 4 weeks.

Everyone as they like. But I would never come up with the idea of building a house like that..

You overlooked the special humor of .

Hm, with us the drainage channel already cost 400.

But the floor-level shower here is just a placeholder for so many other things anyway. Here in the forum, I have already read some disproportionate statements several times regarding "social housing": it starts with a bathroom under 10 sqm, continues with the missing guest WC in an 80 sqm house, etc.
You just don't have to follow the mainstream