Passive homes - opinions welcomed...

SeanoChuinn

Evening all,

We had decided a couple years ago that we'd like to build a Passive House. We understood the additional costs and investment, but were sold on all the advantages of Passive over minimum standard. We've got a great site, found a great passive builder, a great architect and have just had our planning approved by our local council.

We're savers, so are in a reasonably good position with money (20k in savings), and have just started to apply for mortgages to all the major institutions. We've know the cost and all finished a turn key home will come in at the 272k mark. We know this is proportionately high in comparisons to friends and family who have all built standard homes in the last couple of years. But you pay for what you get. A future proofed home that doesn't have to have minimum standard windows pulled in five years because they are leaking heat, low energy bills, fresh clean air etc. etc. things we haven't seen with these same family and friends homes just recently built in the last 5-10 years.

But now we find that even though our "dream home" is achievable for us the time frames are pushed way out because of the extra cost to build at a higher quality. We'd need to save more to receive more from the banks as such.

My question then, has anyone built a passive home but now some what regretted it and had wished they'd just built maybe a higher quality but standard home to reduce costs? Or has anyone started out wanting a passive home but instead decided to build a higher quality non-passive house and are as happy with the end result??

We've been in many homes just after completion and even through there is a discernible difference between a finished passive home and a finished minimum standard home we're wondering if we could sacrifice the passive element in order to get to our own dream house sooner.

First world issues I know, considering the plight people are finding themselves in with lack of homes for people families, mortgage arrears pressures etc. etc. but would love to hear peoples opinions.

Thanks everyone.

fits

I don't think you need to choose between minimum standards and passive. There is a middle road. We are planning a build at present and I don't think our budget will stretch to certified passive house. So instead we will have a design using passive principles which combined with a quality build standard will lead to a very efficient and comfortable home. thats our thinking on it anyway.

BryanF

Sean
Finishes can be cheap and still look great. Then when you have the money you can tidy/spend on these 'extras'

'Fabric first' - get the bones of the building right, because that's harder to upgrade after your moved in.

Exposed plasterboard for the first year or two in an unused bedroom.
Or painted concrete floors,
plywood on walls,
exposed timber joists,
pallet for spare bed

Get the heated envelope right!

Edit: and reduce the f'n footprint m2!

SeanoChuinn

We're not planning on getting certified to a passive standard. But like your selves we didn't want to cut corners on windows or insulation and wanted to get MHVR and air tightness etc. so we invest properly in quality products, which gets us way above standard but maybe not fully out to Passive.

I guess the problem is its all very well to want highest quality and standards, but are we willing to balance a lower standard against a lower build cost

SeanoChuinn

Great point Bryan. And we're ALL about getting that exo-skeleton right, the aesthetic stuff we can do as funds become available, we don't want to walk into a completely finished home with it exactly as we want it. That would be silly of us. So long as we'd have the basics we could well survive.

fits

What size are you hoping to build? We are going with 80m2 footprint in a two story. We also have a cottage that will be joined on and refurbished to extend the accommodation but that will come later.

SeanoChuinn

We're 196m2 with no upstairs at all, that was recommended to make the air tightness a better and less costly job. And that's after squeezing out every square inch we thought we can do without!! Our architect is great and has helped us by coming up with ideas to conserve space from the subtle to the more brutal - "lets get rid of that bedroom!!!" We've gone from a 250m2 initial idea many, many months ago to this now. Its a very simple 3 bedroom, kitchen/great room, sitting room and mud room idea.

fits

We are getting 3 bedrooms in the 160. Albeit two of them compact enough. Open plan kitchen dining living downstairs plus utility and bootroom and wc/shower. Upstairs is two small bedrooms plus master. One big bathroom. And a small office. At least that's how its looking at the moment. Cottage will give another 50m2 or so when we get around to it.

Calahonda52

Op re
we're wondering if we could sacrifice the passive element in order to get to our own dream house sooner.

yes you can but it would be penny wise pound foolish.
Just dig out the energy footprint per sq m for a passive house, not certified as you say but meeting the standards, and dig out the same numbers for the next best available to you in terms of a A or B rated BER.

Then work out the energy savings per annum in kWh
Then take a stab at future energy prices, oil 300 USD a barrel in 2030 perhaps.
Do the Present value calcs for say 40 years and that will be your expected savings against the increased capital cost now, which should only be 10 to12% above the standard leaky house, anything higher is excess profit.

For me, right now with interest rates and energy prices so low, PH is a no brainer.
Again to repeat what B says, reduce the foot print

re this
found a great passive builder, a great architect

What Airtightness levels are they consistently achieving?

just see this
Its a very simple 3 bedroom, kitchen/great room, sitting room and mud room idea: 196 sqm simple, defo an exalted first world problem