The Dilemma of a Self-Builder of a Single-Family House

She chose the title of her diploma thesis primarily based on the dilemma in which she found herself as well. She was interested in which construction is better, more durable and more robust, how to choose and on what basis to decide. The diploma thesis discusses the comparison of self-construction of a single-family house using traditional construction with prefabricated construction. In this case, financing is secured until the completion of the project for both prefabricated and traditional turnkey construction. However, when this is not possible, traditional construction per unit of measure or in the form of self-building prevails, as it can be stopped when funds are lacking without suffering damage, and continued when there is some financial reserve again.

Problem

She chose the title of her diploma thesis primarily based on the dilemma in which she found herself as well. She was interested in which construction is better, more durable and more robust, how to choose and on what basis to decide. Her decision was also influenced by the fact that she found herself in the position of a construction investor, that is, in a position where one must choose between traditional and prefabricated construction and decide what kind of house they will build.

She decided to review and present these two types of construction and show the advantages and disadvantages of each side. As she was encountering construction for the first time, there was more information from books and forums than from her own experience, as she had never participated in such a project before.

Solution and Method

The diploma thesis discusses the comparison of self-construction of a single-family house using traditional construction with prefabricated construction. It is intended for everyone interested in this profession and for everyone who is encountering or will encounter construction, even if only as investors. Some investors or individuals interpret these two types quite simplistically, although there is quite a difference between them.

In the end, everything depends on their wishes, trust in construction and financial capabilities. In the introduction, she defined the problem, purpose and objectives of the diploma thesis. The objectives were primarily to explain, define the advantages and disadvantages of both constructions and also provide a simplified description of the traditional and prefabricated construction process.

The most important fact for her was the lifespan of the newly constructed building. Construction is a major investment, where durability and quality construction are important so that we can live in peace in our new home. She also took as an ** advantage** ** self-building, primarily ** from a financial perspective.

True, building a home is a lifetime investment, but nevertheless everyone is financially limited and we help ourselves in different ways. We are not in a fire or flood-prone area, but disaster never rests. Traditional construction also gained a plus here, as prefabricated construction is very sensitive to moisture, ** wind, ** water, ** fire** ** and floods**.

With quality and well-installed materials, traditional construction is also energy efficient. Time is also of great importance. When we want to move quickly, they will opt for dry construction, which can be completed in three months, but it is inferior in durability to masonry construction, which excellently withstands time.

Through the described examples of financial plans, she wanted to present the cost of both constructions by individual construction phases. From what is shown, we see that a prefabricated house is more expensive, and one must also have all the money in reserve – as with turnkey masonry house construction. Traditional construction ** can be cheaper initially, but later ** can prove to be more expensive in case of poor projects and unprofessional execution and consequently additional costs for ** remediation and error correction**.

Most investors take out a loan and mortgage for construction.

Results

In this case, financing is secured until the completion of the project for both prefabricated and traditional turnkey construction. However, when this is not possible, traditional construction per unit of measure or in the form of self-building prevails, as it can be stopped when funds are lacking without suffering damage, and continued when there is some financial reserve again. In terms of time, ** prefabricated construction has a great advantage**. When we want a quickly built house, they will definitely opt for it.

Such a house can be completed in three months, whilst wet construction requires time. ** With wet construction, under ideal conditions, everything can take a year**, often longer. In the schedule, we see how works follow each other in traditional construction and how one must wait between individual works for the installed materials to dry before continuing with other works. With prefabricated construction, the schedule is much shorter, as construction does not last long.

Ready-made walls are brought to the construction site, where they are assembled. We can also already have installed windows and installations, which contributes to an even faster completion of construction and faster moving into a new home. She herself deliberated for a long time about which construction to choose.

The location is ideal for both types, as are the climatic conditions. In the end, traditional construction prevailed. Why?

Primarily, she trusts it more. Why? Because of the years it excellently withstands, and because of the material she trusts more.

The decision was also aided by the fact that they will be self-builders. Perhaps in this way they will not save anything or it may even cost us more, but with financial limitations we have almost no other choice.