Theoretically, building along standard building material sizes should save some money, but not all that much. It only saves money on the basic shell, which is really a fairly small part of the total cost. Even then, the savings aren't all that big. It seems like when you hit one dimension right on the money, another one will miss. If a room is say, 16' on the outside, the inside is only going to be about 15', so there's the waste anyway. I suppose intentionally making dimensions just a little bigger than standard sheet goods could drive the cost up some.

By far, it's the interior of a home where much of the money is spent- flooring, finishes, kitchens, bathrooms, utilities, etc.

As for the corners- yes, more corners cost more money. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could give you an actual percentage. Complicated roofs cost a lot more, too. The trend in recent years towards umpteen gables and bump-outs tends to run the cost up. A plain rectangle with a plain gable roof, like the old Cape Cod homes is the cheapest to build. Those old New Englanders knew a thing or two about saving money!

While we're at it, for a given square footage, two stories is cheaper than one, since you only (theoretically) have half the roof, and half the foundation. If your lot is suited to it, a basement is also very inexpensive square footage also, since you already had to put something there to build the house on.

The most important thing is to build a house with good 'bones'; a solid, well-insulated house with a good floor plan. If you have to leave out some higher-end finishes to get that, it's well worth it, rather than building a flimsy, inefficient barn of a place, but with counter tops to die for.

Thanks very much. I have heard about complicated roofs and two stories being more economical than one and we're going to keep the roof simple and have two stories. I also understand and agree about the bones, and I doubt that we'll have high-end finishes, more like mid-range.

For the same square footage, a rectangle will have less total perimeter wall length than a shape with six or more corners. The walls of a rectangle shape will also be faster and cheaper to frame than a more complex shape with more corners.

Before the War Between the States, proponents of octagonal houses claimed that they were the most efficient shape because of the lack of sharp corners on the interior. I lived in the City of Modern Times on Long Island, N.Y., which boasted a number of free thinkers and octagonal homes--a century before I moved in. I vaguely remember one octagonal home was still standing in my time.

It's not corners particularly that add cost, but complicated roof designs. But only to the extent that there is a shortage of skilled carpenters. Even then, pre-made trusses make the job easier and cheaper than stick building.

"Advanced framing" is a technique that can save lumber costs--if you can convince your local engineer or building authority to approve it. This would, among other things, include longer o.c. dimensions and two-stud corners (See link.)

When you're designing you do want to choose ceiling heights that are consistent with common stud lengths. By contrast, I built a custom home where the husband wanted 8ft ceilings, the wife 10ft. They compromised with 9ft. So hundreds of ten footers had to be bought, then cut down and the scrap tossed and hauled away.

All your efforts at efficiency can go to nought through wasteful habits of carpenters. When I first started building, I used a carpenter and crew whose philosophy was quite explicitly, "We don't pull nails." So any dimensional lumber that wasn't perfect or was a temp support--and most any home has dozens-- was tossed on the scrap pile. Since my construction manager agreed that reusing lumber was "beneath" the carpenters, I went along.

Later, I contracted a carpenter from the "old country" who kept every piece of scrap and used it when it fit. He would admonish me, "Don't waste that!" It was amazing how little actually ended up in the landfill.

The same principle applies to other materials. I supply the bricks and have always gotten the excess down to less than a cube (400-500 bricks). I then use those for hearths or fireplaces. In one home, we used absolutely every last brick--including a couple I dug up and washed off.

I look at every bit of building material on site as money, my money. And I'm not throwing it away.

Here is a link that might be useful: Advanced Framing

We're installing our own fiber cement siding now and I know there is more waste and time involved with each additional corner. I'm thankful we kept them to a minimum when designing the house. Each corner involves more trim boards, and each short wall and gable involves more cutting (time and materials).

I also know that when the foundation was being built, they suggested we add 6 inches to the floorplan, front to back, so they didn't have to cut and waste block.

Staying on 'module spacing' can save some material, but can also result in increased labor costs.

The slightest error can wipe out the savings very quickly, in many cases making it not worth the effort.

Thanks, all. Good food for thought