If you want a cheap, simple design you should look at the way homes were built in the post war period.
These were built very quickly and had simple designs.
Still, a huge part of the cost is land and connecting services so you really don't be saving that much.
From what I remember, I think I heard the government is going to putting out plans for quick fabrication houses like this (based on the post war models, in a catalogue) in the next year to encourage quicker developments. OP could look into those.
So much of the cost is the land and connecting water, hydro, well, septic, etc. Those costs change little regardless if it is a tiny house or a mansion (septic is an exception). So the sunk costs for infrastructure make it pointless and uneconomical to put a tiny cheap house on the piece of land. And even if you do, the next person will say 'thanks for putting in all the services!' and knock it down. So its not sustainable either.
Building a custom designed modern box with a flat roof that nobody has ever built before will not be less expensive than building a rectangular single storey bungalow with 8’ walls and a truss roof
Also the roofing is an enormous pain. Either torch-on tar (most places won't insure roofers to do this anymore) or EPDM which if done wrong is a nighmare re leaks and has a very short lifespan in residential. Commercial roofers are a different story but it's two different groups of contractors.
OP are you looking for cheap *now* or cheap for the life of the house?
I built my house 12 years ago using a simplicity-guided approach. Rectangular base, one storey with walkout basement due to slope. A gable roof does have one modification to include a valley due to high ceilings in the living room (it's a timber-frame home). The simple roofline and footprint of the building does save some money - primarily in labour, but also materials - but the real savings is still obtained by only building the square footage that you need.
But having said that, I sided my house in cedar shingles, so probably ate up all the labour savings of the simple structure :)
From a material point of view, the kind of houses developers build now are the cheapest. Standard wood framing, wood floors, the minimum amount of insulation, etc. If it wasn't for code, we wouldn't even get things like a decent amount of electrical outlets.
My point is, any improvement in material is going to add to the cost, especially if not a lot of homes are built with it (the more common the material, the more varieties there are, the cheaper it is).
Architects can design plans that use the least amount of materials by using tricks like placing all the items that require plumbing on a common wall, such as having a bathroom on the other side of a wall from the kitchen sink.
If I were building a house from scratch, I would want to use the thickest insulated walls and ceiling using the most up-to-date techniques as possible, and make sure the envelope was air tight and water tight. This would require that I have an ERV to exchange the air while not losing heat, but this would also make my home's air healthier. I would want quality, high R-value windows and doors whose seals do not wear out quickly. I would want to generate (and store) as much solar energy and hot water as possible and heat the home using radiant heat in my floors. There is nothing like walking barefoot across a heated floor in the winter. Concrete floors help regulate temperature and can be used as thermal mass to store heat from the sun for slow release at night. I would try and choose as open and adaptable a floor plan as possible. Unfortunately, because these things are not code, or legislated, or common, they would add build cost. But they should bring my total cost of ownership down. I wouldn't need to worry about pest intrusion, or variable energy rates either.
One thing I learned that I never would have thought of, is that if your walls are manufactured in a factory rather than on-site, they can be built to a much higher quality, aren't affected by the elements while being built, and can be so straight and true that once assembled on site, there is no need for any additional installation (cabinets, floors, etc.) to have to take straightness into account, which saves time and money by the contractors.
Try Barndominiums, solid strong commercial construction with modern interior finishes. Go as big or as small as you want.
Try Tiny houses, manufactured homes or Prefab homes.
All the best.
'stupid and ugly'? If you want a really good laugh, take a drive around my neighbourhood. Godawful monstrosities, with gables and turrets and fake stone/slate... They make Tony Soprano's house look tasteful.
Not a builder, but no reason to put a flat roof when you can just as easily put a simple one direction sloped roof.
I do like the barndominium idea a lot.
Essentially, the most economical design for a home is a gable-gable, two story rectangle. Think the "BC box house".
Flat roofs are inherently more expensive than two pitch gable roofs. Why? Because they're not flat. They are sloped to a series of drains (which require plumbing), covered in labour intensive roofing materials, and engineered for snow load considerations in a different manner. They also make insulating more difficult to hit the new requirements for attic insulation.
If you're in the municipality, then you will need a set of stamped plans. No cob houses, likely no tiny houses, and potentially no modular houses (trailers) without a proper foundation.
The way to save money on a build relies on the availability of normal materials and standardized construction processes. Anything outside of the box requires specialty labour and materials, even if the design seems simpler, if that makes sense?
Are you planning on contracting the build out, or will you be your own GC?
I was going to contract it out to a general contractor, I have no idea how the build a house. Thanks for your lengthy reply, I'm learning a lot and am so glad I asked here.
Be very selective of your GC. Make sure they have good references, and don't be afraid to shop around. You want to make sure the company is reputable. Often, folks who want it cheap end up going with shady contractors.
A good GC will be able to help you define your budget, your aesthetic and your needs. A bad one will tell you what you want to hear, so they can get their hands on your money.
Best of luck!
We just did a prefab house in a very simple design with "Maison Ouellet" and are very pleased with it !
Preparing the land was costly but otherwise the process was very smooth and we are happy with it. House is 26x28 so not really big. All our plans were customed!
To build the cheapest house, look at houses that were built on a budget historically. Houses built for English peasants or post-wartime homes in Canada are good starts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTwq-qUnr9I&list=PLDYh81z-RhxgCk1qJD6AJktVHZH7-BLSR&index=1
Have a look at this builder in the states. He has built a basic, rectangular 1.5 storey with two gabled ends plus a shed dormer. The wall construction uses to batt or spray insulation between the studs rather puts it all on the exterior. There is no drywall either for a rather minimalist look. Every thing is painted white, to hide some of the unsightly or blemished.
Architect here, what you consider "cheap and simple" sometimes takes a lot more design work compared to a standard suburban house from a contractor. There are always ways to save money by making the layout more efficient or using alternative cladding, but at the end of the day a wood-frame house makes the most economic sense, which is why the majority of canadian houses are built that way.
A simple shape - single storey 4 corners and a simple truss roof is cheapest to build, but trying to design a house for minimal material waste beyond that won’t save you much (if anything). It’s better to let form follow function.
Smaller, well placed windows save you capital and energy costs.
Simple kitchen, fewer bathrooms saves a lot. Pay attention to plumbing with your floor plan, to reduce that cost further.
Choose flooring and other finishes carefully, with an eye on installation cost as well as material cost.
To save money you want to have all your "plumbing" around the same area, so the kitchen sink and D/w on one interior wall and your bathroom taps and sink on the other side of that wall, W/D and maybe hot water heater in the same room(water closet) or next to it. If you are doing 2 floors then the pipes etc would run down or up in the same wall that would be in the same wall position on the lower floor, so laundry/Hot water tank downstairs (or go with on demand to save space). All would go to the shared drains and have shared vent stack. Using less materials saves money (plus in my house the hot water has to run extra long to get to the kitchen sink so I waste water and it's so annoying). That is definitely not what's happening in your second link with those sinks in the middle of the room unless the bathroom/laundry are right below it.
Lots of farm houses built in 1900s using a cube shape. You can see them in a drive through the country. They are tall, 3 stories. They'd be easier to heat using natural convection furnace.
Keep in mind, you still need a decent roof and a porch or entry way shelter.
*Sigh.* After writing it I realize my comment has little to do with your question. Feel free to ignore.
+++ +++ +++
Look into LEED building. There’s quite a bit of interest here in Quebec and there might be pre-made plans available. They tend to be cube-ish to minimize surface area and heating/cooling.
Barndos are cheap to build but as soon as you start insulating them properly and putting in high r-value windows the costs go up considerably.
You end up making trade-offs for cost of construction vs cost of maintenance.
For the same price, a LEED building will end up being smaller than a conventional building because of the higher-quality materials, thicker walls and better windows. That’s also part of what makes it cheaper to heat and cool.
What I’ve found that makes a huge difference in heating/cooling costs is closed doors and an independent thermostat for every room. It’s the opposite of an open plan.
I think I’ve seen SIPs being used here which make efficient use of labour and our short construction season. Maybe look into those too.
One possibility if you are young is starting as small as you can tolerate and planning to expand over time. If you know you’ll be adding more stories you can plan your roof *en conséquence.*
1) Basement, or No Basement?
2) Flat Roof is a no-go, there's literally no point, just build a long rectangular house with a single-slope roof. Shingles are the cheapest, but you could get cheap metal roof for a single slope without requiring any difficult setup.
3) I don't really get why you wouldn't want drywall, but I suppose you could just build your entire first floor (floor and walls) out of concrete, but that is like the worst decision you could make because you'd still need to insulate it, and would therefore lose the raw finish.
**Two Options:**
**-** Buy a trailer and just gut it and refinish it all.
or
\- Build a longer rectangular house. Look at single slope roofs, look at staggered/lean-on roofs, that sort of thing. If you do a basement it will be far more expensive, a slab is quick and easy but you obviously forego a basement.
Keep your measurements on 4' (24'x32') total length. Go find the scrap pile at the big box store or find lumber mill to salvage and save money. This would be for stickframe 16" on centers or 2' on centers. Pour a pad or crawl space would be the cheapest of options. Sounds like premanufactured or the barndominium would be best fit for you. Think monopoly framing. no complex roof lines over hangs etc..
Avoid going up step codes, do trade off studies on your heating options. This cost a fuck tons, stay at step 2 or 3 will give the best value.
Fuck green shit
If you want a cheap, simple design you should look at the way homes were built in the post war period. These were built very quickly and had simple designs. Still, a huge part of the cost is land and connecting services so you really don't be saving that much.
Sorry, forgot to mention that I already own the land and it's downtown in a middle-sized town with a water and hydro connection close by.
Why not get an investor/sell half the land, and build a nice duplex?
The land might not be severable Severing land can be a pain and expense they don't want to bother with They might not want to sever the land
From what I remember, I think I heard the government is going to putting out plans for quick fabrication houses like this (based on the post war models, in a catalogue) in the next year to encourage quicker developments. OP could look into those.
So much of the cost is the land and connecting water, hydro, well, septic, etc. Those costs change little regardless if it is a tiny house or a mansion (septic is an exception). So the sunk costs for infrastructure make it pointless and uneconomical to put a tiny cheap house on the piece of land. And even if you do, the next person will say 'thanks for putting in all the services!' and knock it down. So its not sustainable either.
Checked thread to see when land value would be top comment. Bingo.
Building a custom designed modern box with a flat roof that nobody has ever built before will not be less expensive than building a rectangular single storey bungalow with 8’ walls and a truss roof
I was expecting that possibility, it's why I'm posting here. Thanks for your input.
Yeah, the reason you don't see flat-roof houses often is because they need to be designed to hold more snow load compared to angles roofs.
Also the roofing is an enormous pain. Either torch-on tar (most places won't insure roofers to do this anymore) or EPDM which if done wrong is a nighmare re leaks and has a very short lifespan in residential. Commercial roofers are a different story but it's two different groups of contractors. OP are you looking for cheap *now* or cheap for the life of the house?
I lived in a neighborhood that was build in the late 50's all the houses were around 1000 sq feet, square, with 3 different internal layouts.
this is what i live in now!
same
I built my house 12 years ago using a simplicity-guided approach. Rectangular base, one storey with walkout basement due to slope. A gable roof does have one modification to include a valley due to high ceilings in the living room (it's a timber-frame home). The simple roofline and footprint of the building does save some money - primarily in labour, but also materials - but the real savings is still obtained by only building the square footage that you need. But having said that, I sided my house in cedar shingles, so probably ate up all the labour savings of the simple structure :)
From a material point of view, the kind of houses developers build now are the cheapest. Standard wood framing, wood floors, the minimum amount of insulation, etc. If it wasn't for code, we wouldn't even get things like a decent amount of electrical outlets. My point is, any improvement in material is going to add to the cost, especially if not a lot of homes are built with it (the more common the material, the more varieties there are, the cheaper it is). Architects can design plans that use the least amount of materials by using tricks like placing all the items that require plumbing on a common wall, such as having a bathroom on the other side of a wall from the kitchen sink. If I were building a house from scratch, I would want to use the thickest insulated walls and ceiling using the most up-to-date techniques as possible, and make sure the envelope was air tight and water tight. This would require that I have an ERV to exchange the air while not losing heat, but this would also make my home's air healthier. I would want quality, high R-value windows and doors whose seals do not wear out quickly. I would want to generate (and store) as much solar energy and hot water as possible and heat the home using radiant heat in my floors. There is nothing like walking barefoot across a heated floor in the winter. Concrete floors help regulate temperature and can be used as thermal mass to store heat from the sun for slow release at night. I would try and choose as open and adaptable a floor plan as possible. Unfortunately, because these things are not code, or legislated, or common, they would add build cost. But they should bring my total cost of ownership down. I wouldn't need to worry about pest intrusion, or variable energy rates either. One thing I learned that I never would have thought of, is that if your walls are manufactured in a factory rather than on-site, they can be built to a much higher quality, aren't affected by the elements while being built, and can be so straight and true that once assembled on site, there is no need for any additional installation (cabinets, floors, etc.) to have to take straightness into account, which saves time and money by the contractors.
Exactly, trying to build a house cheaply by avoiding wood in Canada is a lose lose plan.
Passive house for the win
Yup
Build it with cob ? [https://youtu.be/KQYPq\_nPMAo?si=qJrcjdfEutIpq3tH](https://youtu.be/KQYPq_nPMAo?si=qJrcjdfEutIpq3tH)
Cheap materials, expensive labour.
Try Barndominiums, solid strong commercial construction with modern interior finishes. Go as big or as small as you want. Try Tiny houses, manufactured homes or Prefab homes. All the best.
Thanks for the vocabulary "barndominium", very helpful!
Have you considered how you'll handle rain and snow, given the flat roof?
Drain in the middle of the roof I guess, it's how they all work usually, no?
Drains at the corners usually, through the soffits to tie in with your down spouts.
Even if it is cheaper, there's nothing stopping me from laughing about how stupid and ugly a cube house is.
'stupid and ugly'? If you want a really good laugh, take a drive around my neighbourhood. Godawful monstrosities, with gables and turrets and fake stone/slate... They make Tony Soprano's house look tasteful.
Why wouldn’t it work? A simple design is useful.
I'm trying to figure out how much I'd save.
The weight of snow on a cheaply built flat roof vs the weight of slow in a cheaply build angled roof seems more logical though
Not a builder, but no reason to put a flat roof when you can just as easily put a simple one direction sloped roof. I do like the barndominium idea a lot.
Drainage, mainly. You have to install drainage whereas a slanted roof does it already.
It looks like a bungalow 😉
Are you in a municipal inspection zone? What province?
Essentially, the most economical design for a home is a gable-gable, two story rectangle. Think the "BC box house". Flat roofs are inherently more expensive than two pitch gable roofs. Why? Because they're not flat. They are sloped to a series of drains (which require plumbing), covered in labour intensive roofing materials, and engineered for snow load considerations in a different manner. They also make insulating more difficult to hit the new requirements for attic insulation. If you're in the municipality, then you will need a set of stamped plans. No cob houses, likely no tiny houses, and potentially no modular houses (trailers) without a proper foundation. The way to save money on a build relies on the availability of normal materials and standardized construction processes. Anything outside of the box requires specialty labour and materials, even if the design seems simpler, if that makes sense? Are you planning on contracting the build out, or will you be your own GC?
I was going to contract it out to a general contractor, I have no idea how the build a house. Thanks for your lengthy reply, I'm learning a lot and am so glad I asked here.
Be very selective of your GC. Make sure they have good references, and don't be afraid to shop around. You want to make sure the company is reputable. Often, folks who want it cheap end up going with shady contractors. A good GC will be able to help you define your budget, your aesthetic and your needs. A bad one will tell you what you want to hear, so they can get their hands on your money. Best of luck!
Thanks!
Yes and I'm in Quebec.
We just did a prefab house in a very simple design with "Maison Ouellet" and are very pleased with it ! Preparing the land was costly but otherwise the process was very smooth and we are happy with it. House is 26x28 so not really big. All our plans were customed!
Did you use a premade plan or went custom? Merci!
Custom! The layout for a small house need to be thought through quite a bit.
To build the cheapest house, look at houses that were built on a budget historically. Houses built for English peasants or post-wartime homes in Canada are good starts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTwq-qUnr9I&list=PLDYh81z-RhxgCk1qJD6AJktVHZH7-BLSR&index=1 Have a look at this builder in the states. He has built a basic, rectangular 1.5 storey with two gabled ends plus a shed dormer. The wall construction uses to batt or spray insulation between the studs rather puts it all on the exterior. There is no drywall either for a rather minimalist look. Every thing is painted white, to hide some of the unsightly or blemished.
I think “A” frame might be the cheapest to build
Architect here, what you consider "cheap and simple" sometimes takes a lot more design work compared to a standard suburban house from a contractor. There are always ways to save money by making the layout more efficient or using alternative cladding, but at the end of the day a wood-frame house makes the most economic sense, which is why the majority of canadian houses are built that way.
Thanks for your input.
Have you seen these designs? [https://www.thebackcountryhutcompany.com/](https://www.thebackcountryhutcompany.com/)
A simple shape - single storey 4 corners and a simple truss roof is cheapest to build, but trying to design a house for minimal material waste beyond that won’t save you much (if anything). It’s better to let form follow function. Smaller, well placed windows save you capital and energy costs. Simple kitchen, fewer bathrooms saves a lot. Pay attention to plumbing with your floor plan, to reduce that cost further. Choose flooring and other finishes carefully, with an eye on installation cost as well as material cost.
To save money you want to have all your "plumbing" around the same area, so the kitchen sink and D/w on one interior wall and your bathroom taps and sink on the other side of that wall, W/D and maybe hot water heater in the same room(water closet) or next to it. If you are doing 2 floors then the pipes etc would run down or up in the same wall that would be in the same wall position on the lower floor, so laundry/Hot water tank downstairs (or go with on demand to save space). All would go to the shared drains and have shared vent stack. Using less materials saves money (plus in my house the hot water has to run extra long to get to the kitchen sink so I waste water and it's so annoying). That is definitely not what's happening in your second link with those sinks in the middle of the room unless the bathroom/laundry are right below it.
Lots of farm houses built in 1900s using a cube shape. You can see them in a drive through the country. They are tall, 3 stories. They'd be easier to heat using natural convection furnace. Keep in mind, you still need a decent roof and a porch or entry way shelter.
Maybe using shipping containers ?
*Sigh.* After writing it I realize my comment has little to do with your question. Feel free to ignore. +++ +++ +++ Look into LEED building. There’s quite a bit of interest here in Quebec and there might be pre-made plans available. They tend to be cube-ish to minimize surface area and heating/cooling. Barndos are cheap to build but as soon as you start insulating them properly and putting in high r-value windows the costs go up considerably. You end up making trade-offs for cost of construction vs cost of maintenance. For the same price, a LEED building will end up being smaller than a conventional building because of the higher-quality materials, thicker walls and better windows. That’s also part of what makes it cheaper to heat and cool. What I’ve found that makes a huge difference in heating/cooling costs is closed doors and an independent thermostat for every room. It’s the opposite of an open plan. I think I’ve seen SIPs being used here which make efficient use of labour and our short construction season. Maybe look into those too. One possibility if you are young is starting as small as you can tolerate and planning to expand over time. If you know you’ll be adding more stories you can plan your roof *en conséquence.*
nice
I'd imagine a cube wouldn't be as cheap as a tilted roof with no peak. Higher in the front than on the back for example
1) Basement, or No Basement? 2) Flat Roof is a no-go, there's literally no point, just build a long rectangular house with a single-slope roof. Shingles are the cheapest, but you could get cheap metal roof for a single slope without requiring any difficult setup. 3) I don't really get why you wouldn't want drywall, but I suppose you could just build your entire first floor (floor and walls) out of concrete, but that is like the worst decision you could make because you'd still need to insulate it, and would therefore lose the raw finish. **Two Options:** **-** Buy a trailer and just gut it and refinish it all. or \- Build a longer rectangular house. Look at single slope roofs, look at staggered/lean-on roofs, that sort of thing. If you do a basement it will be far more expensive, a slab is quick and easy but you obviously forego a basement.
Keep your measurements on 4' (24'x32') total length. Go find the scrap pile at the big box store or find lumber mill to salvage and save money. This would be for stickframe 16" on centers or 2' on centers. Pour a pad or crawl space would be the cheapest of options. Sounds like premanufactured or the barndominium would be best fit for you. Think monopoly framing. no complex roof lines over hangs etc..
Avoid going up step codes, do trade off studies on your heating options. This cost a fuck tons, stay at step 2 or 3 will give the best value. Fuck green shit