bungalow with or without attic conversion

gooner99

Hi All. I think I posed this question before,but now I want to ask it in a slightly different way.I currently have planning for a story and a half dwelling,but I'm considering changing to a bungalow style due to it being too large and with building prices, the new regs and energy costs it may be a bridge too far.

So what I want to gauge opinion on is which of 2 options is best from both a build cost and an energy point of view.also from a lifrstyle point of view.

Both options will have approx the same floor area.

Option 1 - bungalow without attic conversion.

1. larger footprint meaning bigger foundations,etc
2. more block walls.
3. more downstairs windows
4. sealed attic,with only a trap door
5. future proof if you can't make it up stairs in old age
6. probably one less bathroom needed,as all living on one level


Option 2 - bungalow with the attic converted

1. smaller footprint meaning smaller foundations,etc
2. less block walls,but studed upstairs walls needed
3. less windows downstairs,but ones on gables and velux's needed
4. attic open due to stairs
5. upstairs may be off bounds as we grow older

These are the pro's and cons that I can see off hand,please feel free to add to them.I would also be interested in hearing for you guys that are living in either version and what you think of your version as opposed to the other.

Also like to hear your views on cost of build and any energy savings due to the attic being closed or open.I will probably go with condensing oil burner and rads,with a stove in an open plan area.also solar panels for dhw and maybe help with the hot water for the heating.I plan to spend money saved on heatpumps,etc. to insulate the house to a high standard.

I look forward to your help on this issue.

Thanks in advance

GoneShootin

Why not go for "proper" dormer instead of the conversion?

Mellor

You didn't include for the new planning premission in the first one

gooner99

Just in reply to the 2 replies so far.

We have planning for a story and a half,so we would have to go for change of house type with both options.Change of house should be pretty straight forward (I think),as we would be lowering the ridge height.

On the proper dormer.That is one of the reasons for looking at a alternative.I have read in other posts on here that dormers are both more expensive than velux and also worse from an energy point of view,as it is hard to get theem insulated properly.Maybe I'm wrong?

Possibly the best from an energy point of view is to have a closed attic in a single story (no upstairs living),as there are no dormers,velux's or windows on the gable walls.Again maybe I have got this wrong?

I'm not sure why most people who build bungalows these days nearly always convert the attic space.Not sure if it's more cost effective to build on a smaller footprint and have living space in the attic or if there are others reasons why this seems to be the norm?

I don't seem to see too many single floor living bungalows these days.

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

topcatcbr

gooner99 wrote: »

Possibly the best from an energy point of view is to have a closed attic in a single story (no upstairs living),as there are no dormers,velux's or windows on the gable walls.Again maybe I have got this wrong?

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

Not true You will end up with a larger external surface area

The u-value may be better but as there will inevetably be more externally exposed floor, walls and ceiling ther will be more overall heatloss per m sq.

davidoco

One issue I would have with the bungalow/dormer issue is keeping the bedrooms together. With young children (say under 10) you don't want them sleeping on a different floor to you.

I actually live in a bungalow with attic room space but the attic is used only for a guest bedroom/cold weather play area, storage and office.

gooner99

topcatcbr wrote: »

Not true You will end up with a larger external surface area

The u-value may be better but as there will inevetably be more externally exposed floor, walls and ceiling ther will be more overall heatloss per m sq.

Thanks for the reply.I understand what you are saying about there being a larger surface area,so there would be more heatloss from the greater area of walls,roof and floor.But although a bungalow with converted attic would have less wall,floor and roof area,would you not loose a lot of heat through the large hole in the ceiling where the stairs go and the fact that there would be velux windows in the roof and windows on the upper part of the gable walls.Or would the heatloss be less than the bungalow without converted attic?

Also which would be harder to heat?

I would also be interested to hear from you guys about the build cost.I assume that a contractor will normally quote per square foot or meter of living space solely and not take into account the larger footprint,wall area and roof of the bungalow without uptairs living area.So if both options (with or without living space in the attic) have a living area of 200 square meters,which one would generally be cheaper to build and why?

Again the same question on build price using direct labour.any significant difference in the price bwtween each option?

I am trying to make my mind up and energy usage and build price are high on the list.Thanks again.

sunnysoutheast

hi gooner99

I think you'd kick yourself if you built in such a way that you ruled out a 1.5-storey house or future conversion by building a bungalow that has unusable attic space (such as by using the cheaper roof trusses).

I don't know your situation or future needs but I'd say you would preserve a lot of value in your home if you at least allowed for 1.5/2-storey living - you already have the permission.

My advice, personal opinion as always, is that you could build your bungalow to suit yourself downstairs if money is tight but retain the flexibility to convert in the future - such as by using attic trusses, constructing the roof to allow the rooms, running blanked-off services etc.

Bungalows are more expensive to build per sq.ft. of living space, you're still building roughly the same amount of foundations, walls and roof whether you use the attic or not. Builders won't apply a "100 per sq.ft. of living space rule" when pricing.

I wouldn't let heat loss etc. be your driving considerations in all this - whilst important - put more focus on ensuring that whatever you build is built right.

Good luck
SSE

RKQ

Its a simple fact that a long rectangular bungalow uses more energy than a square two storey.
The only advantage to building a bungalow is the blocklayer won't need much scaffold!
I think you should stick to your original plan of storey & a half or go with a bungalow with a cut roof, that can be converted in the future! It won't cost that much more.

A series of large velux let in more light and are much cheaper than dormers, simple to insulate too! 2 or 3 M08 velux can look attractive.
Don't waste your money on a bungalow without an attic to convert!

gooner99

Thanks for the replies.Very much appreciated.

I have taken the following.

1. A bungalow style house with a smaller footprint is more energy efficent even if the ceiling is open to allow for attic space (or is a 1.5 or 2 story),than a bungalow with closed attic and a larger footprint.Based on all options being built and insulated to the same standard.

2. Dormers are much more expensive than velux windows and velux let in more light.

3. Although people talk about the "100 euro per sqm" pricing,builders will take other factors into consideration,such as wall area,roof area,dormers,etc.

Now questions.

In a roof with converted attic (or 1.5 + 2 story) there would be velux windows in the roof and windows on the gables.As the roof can lose quite a bit of heat,would this not balance out the greater heatloss from the larger wall area of a bungalow without attic conversion and no velux windows.Or are the veluxs well insulated and fitted that the heatloss is not so great?

Builders it would seem take into consideration not only the square area of the floor,but things like complex roof,dormers,wall area.Are there any other features on a house that can look great,but cost much more to build and therefor should be considered at design stage?