fiat final seminar, 16.6 - rakli ry ¼ 6 159 752 7 450 765 8 351 806 ¼ dp 1 634 1 976 2 215 *dudjh...

FIAT Final Seminar, 16.6.2016

FIAT, Results Seminar, 16.6.2016

The research method and phases

Research Method


- The research was initiated to clarify if there was a difference in the costs of

construction between Graz, Austria and Helsinki, Finland.

- The aims of the study was firstly to find out differences in the construction

costs between the two locations and secondly what are the reasons behind

them.

- The study was made calculatively to ensure that as closely as possible the

comparison was made in the way that the things being compared were

comparable

- The starting point was a data set of 4 Austrian projects from Graz and multiple

Finnish projects from the Helsinki region. After initial study 2 Austrian projects

were selected for closer inspection and 2 Finnish projects were selected as

Finnish reference projects

The Austrian projects that were estimated

Badgasse

– Gross area 8.224 gm2

– Apartment area 3.770 am2

– 50 apartments

– Average apartment size 75.4 m2

– Underground garage 1462 m2, 52 AP, 28.1 m2/AP


Lassnitzhöhe



– 18 apartments

– Average apartment size 76,7 m2

- Separate underground garage, 18 cars, 21,7 m2/AP + 18 carplaces on the roof

The Finnish reference projects

Kangasalantie

– Gross area,total 7.981 grm2


– 56 apartments


– Underground garage 1.702 m2, 66 carplaces, 25,8 m2/AP


Kilvoituksentie



– 42 apartments


- Parking outside on the yard, partly in separate shelters (scope 106 gm2)

Research Method

– The research method used was to calculate the Austrian projects two different ways using Haahtela’s Kustannustieto TAKU ® -software

– The estimates have been calculated of the two Austrian projects:

- Badgasse, Graz, beginning of construction 2012 and

- Lassnitzhöhe, Graz, beginning of construction 2013

- The research method was to make estimates for the two projects as follows:

- First study: Brought the Austrian projects virtually to Helsinki. The projects were estimated in Helsinki with the Austrian designs and specifications.

- Second study: The same projects were modified to the Helsinki region construction culture. This study used the Kustannustieto TAKU® -software’s default features for a residential project as the Finnish solution.

- Finally the calculation method was calibrated by calculating a Finnish project of which the actualized cost data was available.


First study: Estimating the Austrian projects in Helsinki

– First study was made to study the difference in the price level between Graz

and Helsinki

– The projects were estimated according to the Austrian designs and

specifications

– No alterations were made to the designs despite a few replacements of

building elements that are not present in Finland.

– The estimate was done as in the Helsinki price level at the same time as the

studied projects were built in Graz.

– Badgasse beginning in February 2012 and

– Lassnitzhöhe beginning in February 2013


In the next phase the apartments were altered to mirror the way of

construction in Finland:

– Basic project was kept as it was in Austria:

- Apartments’ amount and average sizes were kept the same

- The amount of parking places were kept the same

- Design solutions were turned into those typically built in Helsinki region:

- Common spaces and the massing of the buildings in the Finnish way

- Structural solutions as those that are commonly used in the Area

- The Price level was in the second study that of Helsinki, Finland

- Difference in costs comes from different solutions


Second study: Austrian apartments estimated in the Finnish way of

construction

- The research method used and the calibration of the prices in the software

were studied finally by calculating an estimate for a Finnish apartment

building project with known actualized costs

- Project studied was a multi-story apartment building in Jätkäsaari, Helsinki

- 67 apartments, 4 711 am2, average 70,3 m2/apartment

- The estimate ended up being 1 % less compared to the actualized

contracting costs.


Third study: Validating the research method used

The cost differences noticed

Differences noticed in construction and cost

Differences were noticed in both studies made:

- Difference in the price level

- Site related tasks costs

- Price level of similar building elements

- Form of contracting, site management, resulting competition and efficiency

- Difference in the typical solutions for a project built assuming the conditions

are similar

- Spaces and their dimensioning

- Design and structural solutions:

- Massing of the buildings

- Structural and technical solutions


Cost Differences noticed


- The table shows the unit prices (estimated and actualized) for different projects in

Austria and Helsinki

- The estimates for the Austrian projects with alterations to the Finnish construction

culture are close to the cost level of the Finnish reference projects’ actualized costs

- All the estimates and actualized costs only include the contractor’s part of the

project. Designing, project management and user tasks along with connection and

plot costs were excluded from the comparison. Only the construction costs were

compared. The costs include Garages and Apartments

Actual unit cost

in Graz,

€/am2

Difference in

price level, %

Study 1:

Austrian

designs in

Helsinki,

Study 2:

Finnish

solutions

€/am2

Difference in

solutions %

Badgasse 1 634 € 21 % 1 976 € 2 215 € 12 %

Lassnitzhöhe 1 549 € 54 % 2 393 € 2 748 € 15 %

Karlsdorfer Ringbau 1 738 €

Flossendstrasse 1 683 €

Kangasalantie 2 787 €

Kilvoituksentie 2 616 €

Cost Differences noticed


- Costs of the Austrian projects and their estimates divided between car parking and

apartments:

Austrian actualized

costs

Project estimated in

Helsinki

Project modified to

Finnish construction

Badgasse

total, € 6 159 752 7 450 765 8 351 806

€/am2 1 634 1 976 2 215

Garage, € 589 040 812 641 1 212 858

€/parking place 11 328 15 628 23 324

Apartments, € 5 570 712 6 638 124 7 138 948

€/am2 1 478 1 761 1 894

Lassnitzhöhe

total, € 2 139 370 3 304 273 3 794 591

€/am2 1 549 2 393 2 748

Garage, € 285 795 424 231 632 041

€/parking place 15 878 23 568 35 113

Apartments, € 1 853 575 2 880 042 3 162 550

€/am2 1 342 2 085 2 290

Difference in Price Level


- Eurostat’s investment price index (2014) figures differ between Austria and

Finland for17 %

- In both projects the difference in the cost of site tasks rises the projects’ cost by

6% (temporary structures, site accommodation, assisting work, consumables, site

maintenance, equipment and lifts/cranes)

- Rest of the price level difference comes from various issues:

- Price differences between individual building elements

- Possible reasons behind the difference: contracting style, competition, project

organization, risk-division between the employer and the contractor

- Slight difference in labor costs (Eurostat, 2010)

- The reason for the difference between the two projects was left un

explained. The Lassnitzhöhe project was cheaper than the Badgasse

project in Graz also.

Differences in costs, Price level


Price level differences:

- Compared building elements were chosen on the basis that they existed in all of the Austrian projects making them as representative of the Austrian construction as possible

- Prices include the listed building elements (work, material, equipment), contractor’s site management costs and margin

- Prices were higher in the Finnish price level on all of the compared building elements:

- Masonry is not directly comparable: the Austrian prices are the ‘schallschutzziegel’ and the Finnish ones 2x130mm sand brick masonry wall with the same sound insulation quality.

- Finnish estimate for a pre-fabricated 180mm thick concrete element would be 100,3 €/m2 (+56%)

- If the Ground slab and masonry are excluded the average price difference that remains is 38%.

AT avg. FI est. %

Ground slab 300 mm 163 293 €/m3 80 %

Concrete wall, 250 mm 90 109 €/m2 21 %

Intermediate slab, 200mm 67 106 €/m2 58 %

Swimming surface floor slab 28 37 €/m2 32 %

Thermal plastering 51 71 €/m2 39 %

Masonry, 25 cm 64 124 €/m2 94 %

The differences in spaces


Differences in design and structures, general notes

Finnish reference projects compared to the Austrian projects in general:

– Project sizes in Finland are bigger– Finland average 3.130 apartment m2 and 49 ap.– Austria average 2.820 m2 and 38 ap.

– Apartments are smaller– avg. size of apartment is ~10 m2 smaller

– Fi 63,8 m2, At 74,3 m2– average apartment is smaller

– Fi 2r+k, At 3r+k

– Buildings are higher: – FI 5-6 floors – AT 3 floors

– Design solutions are more efficient:– Efficiency figures grm2/am2 are in the Finnish projects on average 1,6

and in the Austrian one 1,7


Differences in design and structures

- Differences in spaces built in addition to the apartments, massing of the

buildings and structures and solutions used

Kangaslanatie Kilvoituksentie Badgasse Lassnitzhöhe Karlsdorfer Ring Flossendstrasse

apartment area 3877 2378 3770 1381 3136 2999

apartments, pc 56 42 50 18 40 44

average apartment size 70,2 56,6 75,4 76,7 78,4 68,2

Efficiency, grm2/am2 1,58 1,62 1,76 1,59 1,76


difference, m2

99

23

11

228

19

-101

-152

-160

169

Spaces only built in Finland

- Sauna departments

- Laundry rooms

- Cleaning closets

- Ventilation room

- Extra space needed for the Air-raid shelter

Spaces that differed for their scope

- Drying rooms

- Apartments’ storages

- Aisles and stairways’ scope

- Garage scope

Differences in the spaces and dimensioning

Badgasse

difference, m2

33

14

4

56

11

-7

-41

-34

105

Lassnitzhöhe

Main Differences in Finnish & Austrian construction

Differences in spaces built, Badgasse:


Main Differences in Finnish & Austrian construction

Differences in spaces built, Lassnitzhöhe:


m2, Austrian

project

m2, Finnish

requirements

difference,

m2 €

Garage 392 497 105 89 626

outdoor equipment/Cycle storage 64 54 -10 15 580 -

Baby buggies/Personal aid 10 10 12 000

Apartments' storages 94 53 -41 45 100 -

Cleaning/House storage 0 4,3 4,3 11 395

Waste disposal 23 22 -1 2 446 -

Additional space for ARS 0 11 11 13 200

Laudry room 0 14 14 30 100

Drying rooms 17 10 -7 8 400 -

Club room facilities 0 0 0 -

Sauna departments 1,6 34,5 32,9 69 788

Aisles and stariways 337 302,6 -34,4 67 477 -

Ventilation room 0 56 56 86 800

Technical rooms, excl. Ventilation 19 22,7 3,7 3 700

Total 947,6 1091,1 143,5 177 607

The differences in design solutions and structures

Differences in structures, Garages


Austria:

- Size of a parking place 2,5 m x 5m,

structures can interfere, distance between two

rows 6 m. Free height varied being at lowest

2,2 m.

- Ventilation: CO-detector controlled blowers

for ventilation

- Exit lights, lighting, no electrical connection

points

- No insulation

Finland:

- Size of a parking place: 2,5m x 5 m

free space and the distance between

two rows of parking places 8m.

Minimum free height of 2,5 m.

- Ventilation: controlled air supply and

extraction, additional smoke-

extraction equipment

- Exit lights, lighting, fire-detectors

- Built as warm/halfwarm spaces


Differences, Foundations

Austria:

- Foundations: a concrete levelling layer

(80mm) and a massive (300mm) insulated

ground floor slab, generally no footings or

foundation walls

Finland:

- Foundations: footings and foundation walls. Thick layer of macadam (300mm) and a relatively thin (80mm) well insulated (150mm) ground floor slab

Finland:

2. Concrete 80 mm

3. Geosynthetics

4. Insulation, 100+50 mm

5. Levelling sand, 30 mm

6. Geosynthetics

7. Macadam, 300mm

8. Geosynthetics

9. Base ground

Austria:

2. Insulation 80+80 mm

3. EPS-Concrete, 85 mm

4. Concrete, 300 mm

5. Concrete, 50 mm

6. Bitumen layer

7. Insulation, 50 mm

8. Levelling concrete, 80 mm

9. Base ground

Differences, Structural Frame and Building Envelope


Austria:

- Structural frame: cast on-site concrete slabs, masonry and cast on-site concrete vertical structures

- No Air-raid shelters

- Exterior envelope

- plastic windows,

- exterior wall structure

Finland:

- Structural frame: pre-fabricated concrete elements, hollow core slabs.

- Additional Air-raid- shelter

- Exterior envelope: +4,5 %/ +6.5 %

- Aluminum structured windows,

- Exterior wall structure:

Finland:

1. Plastering 20 mm

2. Masonry 130 mm

3. Air space 40 mm

4+5. Insulation, 50+175 mm

6. Concrete element, 180mm

Badgasse:

1. Plastering 10 mm

2.Insulation 160 mm

3. Masonry 250mm /Concrete wall 200 mm

Lassnitzhöhe:

1. Plastering 7 mm

2.Insulation 140 mm

3. Masonry 250 mm /Concrete 200 mm

Differences, Service Elements


Austria:

- Ventilation: based on windows and

blowers extracting air from kitchens

and bathrooms

- Electrical and data transfer connection

points:

- Electricity: 28,5-31,5

connections/apartment,

Lassnitzhöhe/Badgasse

- Antenna/telephone

connections: 1/apartment

- Internet connections: 4,6-4,8

Finland:

- Ventilation: controlled air supply and extraction, effect +3.5 %/+ 5%

- More electrical and data transfer connection points, effect ~ + 2%

- Electricity: 45- 46,4 connections/apartment

- Antenna/telephone connections: avg. ~ 4 /apartment

- Internet connections: ~5, 2 /apartment

Differences, Apartments and internal space elements


Austria:

- Apartments do not differ that much

between the two countries

- Surface materials:

- Parquet floorings, moist spaces,

tiled floored

- Plastered and painted walls,

moist spaces’ walls tiled

partially

- Plastered and painted ceilings,

no suspended ceilings

- No internal fixtures

Finland: cost effect of internal space elements +4,5 %

- Surface materials are in general quite similar as in Austria. differences in the following:

- Moist spaces’ walls are tiled from floor to ceiling

- Suspended ceilings in the moist spaces and vestibules and kitchens

- Standard fittings, accessories and appliances are included in the project

- Kitchens, cupboards, kitchen appliances, coat racks, hooks, airing racks, curtain tracks

Conclusion

Differences in costs, summary, main points


Summary (Badgasse project):

Actualized cost in Graz 1.633 €/am2 749 €/gm2

+ Site tasks difference +117 €/am2 + 52 €/gm2

+ Contract forms, competition, contracting practices etc.

+ Price level difference +226 €/am2 + 104 €/gm2

Estimated cost in Helsinki 1.976 €/am2 906 €/gm2

+ Building elements + 35 €/am2 + 16 €/gm2

+ Internal space elements + 90 €/am2 + 41 €/gm2

+ Service elements + 102 €/am2 + 47 €/gm2

+ Site elements and site tasks + 12 €/am2 + 5 €/gm2

Cost in Helsinki 2.215 €/am2 1015€/gm2

Differences in costs, summary, main points


Summary (Lassnitzhöhe project):

Actualized cost in Graz 1.549 €/am2 801 €/gm2

+ Site tasks difference +137 €/am2 + 70 €/gm2

+ Contract forms, competition, contracting practices etc.

+ Price level difference +707 €/am2 + 365 €/gm2

Estimated cost in Helsinki 2.393 €/am2 1236 €/gm2

+ Building elements + 48 €/am2 + 25 €/gm2

+ Internal space elements + 109 €/am2 + 56 €/gm2

+ Service elements + 161 €/am2 + 83 €/gm2

+ Site elements and site tasks + 37 €/am2 + 19 €/gm2

Cost in Helsinki 2.748 €/am2 1.419 €/gm2

Haahtela-yhtiöt

Bulevardi 16 B, 00120 Helsinki

[email protected]

www.haahtela.fi

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.haahtela.fi

fiat final seminar, 16.6 - rakli ry ¼ 6 159 752 7 450 765 8 351 806 ¼ dp 1 634 1 976 2 215 *dudjh...

Documents