Well, size matters. There are walk-in closets and bathrooms in some of the floor plans under discussion here that are the size of some houses I've lived in. Ditto butler's pantries, prep kitchens, two dishwashers, music rooms, home gyms, 4 car garages, ensuite baths for every bedroom, and so on.

Keep it simple and you can buy nice windows and quality details.

I think it’s also important to understand the general construction costs/ sf for your area to know what you are getting into. Even a general range of knowing if your region is $200-300/ sf vs $500-900/ sf will help guide you.

There are loads of great architects and design/ build firms that can help, once you have done a little research on your area.

Good luck! I’d love to build my own home someday....

Stone, brick, granite, quartz and tile. Wood maybe more expensive now, but the usual items that add up are the "masonry".

Work to keep countertop size in check, skip tile altogether, use siding, avoid walls.

Not sure I agree with Baba - but it does depend what you call "fancier finishes", but it still can be way more than 2-3%. You can spend $50k on a fancy roof or you can spend $20k on asphalt shingles just to give an example of big dollar amount. Appliance budget can be $5k or $50k. You can spend $5k on door handles or $500.

Depending on where you live and tax incentives, geothermal is not a budget or wise financial choice. Solar is too cheap, air source heat pumps (or minis) are too good. Even with windows, solar is too cheap. You don't need triple pane to bet net zero energy in most parts of the US.

If you have a budget--and almost everyone does--you'll be well served to consult with builders to get calibrated with respect to current construction costs before you select an architect or close on a lot. Select your builder early on and get them involved early in the design process to help ensure you don't stray too much from your budget target. That means your architect/designer needs to be a team player or else you'll need to find a design/build firm. Here's a case study to get you started:

https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2014/05/14/a-better-approach-to-designbuild

baba- we did look into steel, but it seems that the prices of that are also beginning to skyrocket. That and it is unfortunately not at all energy efficient. I’ve looked into SIPs also, thinking the prices might actually be lower than lumber at this point, but I am not sure that the product has been proven enough or that you can avoid moisture issues with it in the long term. This lot would have a house sited at the top of a small hill, so I definitely can’t use a stock plan with a flat lot design or I will encounter the problems of which you speak. I’m hoping an architect can find a way to make the building sit well into the land without it sticking out like a sore thumb or having a ton of angles and rooflines that increase cost.

Charles Ross- I will definitely look for a design-build firm, since from reading it seems like this is the best way to stay within a budget. We do have a budget we’d like to stick to in order to stay comparable with homes in the area. That said, there are certain no compromise things for me- like quality of mechanicals, insulation, windows, etc, the stuff that is behind the walls. I am very worried about the current prices of lumber, etc, so I have to do a lot more research and maybe even wait a bit for things to drop slightly as supply and transportation of materials recovers a bit. I’m not sure prices will ever fully go back, though, so I think I’ll have to take it into consideration.

David Cary- I know that mini splits and solar would be less expensive and relatively efficient, but the production of these products is very energy intensive and things like solar will create a dangerous waste product when they can no longer be utilized. We had mini splits in our last home, and while they are great, they only function well upstairs if no one closes doors. we used to have a bathroom that would get hot as hell in the summer because it wasn’t in the direct line of the mini split and because the door would be shut during any use. I know geothermal will be expensive, but I honestly think it’s the best green technology currently available and that in the long run it’ll be worth it for us and the environment.

I will definitely be able to save on those other choices though- I don’t care about luxury appliances or fancy lighting or doorknobs. I want something I won’t have to replace in a few years because I think that’s a waste, but I don’t have super high end taste. id Only have tile in bathrooms, and even there I don’t think I’d mind marmoleum floors and a unit build fiberglass bath/shower.

Curved glass windows.

^^^^

Damn!

Morpheus, arch. Zaha Hadid

The improved efficiency of geothermal is not magic. It in incrementally better and you would be better suited to spend $'s or concern for waste on other things in the vast majority of the time. That is certainly not my sole opinion. I generally think of COP 3 for good ASHP and 4 for GSHP. Depends on many factors of course but in the end, incremental improvement.

Since an insignificant number of solar panels have ever been removed, any waste concerns in the future are surely a guess.

In my current house, I don't need to run the heat upstairs. Forget a closed door on a bathroom, the relatively open stairwell heats my upstairs. Any comparison to a previously built structure isn't particularly relevant. You can get as many heads for a mini as you think you will need. And, minis are just incrementally better than conventional anyway. Increments matter of course but there are other ways to get increments.

Do you have a geothermal quote in hand? On my last house it was $50k above conventional, $30k after tax credit. It was a decent time sink on building. And it was projected to save $200 a year. Energy rater analysis. At some point, dollars matter, like in your original title.

David- it isn’t just the improved efficiency that makes geothermal more attractive to me. I understand that in that respect the “green” level of it is probably only negligibly better than other green options like solar, high efficiency boilers, etc. What I’m more worried about is the waste. Solar panels only have a lifespan of about 25 years, they cannot be recycled in the vast majority of cases, and they can leach out lead and cadmium when decommissioned. While they are green in the short term, I don’t think they are in the long term. Is this a guess? Likely, but it is an educated one. They cannot last forever, most experts believe they will only last 30 years on the high end, and will certainly not be “green” in their disposal. While solar is not a bad option compared to conventional energy, I think as a whole we are seeing that short term efficiency as an ultimate plus while not considering the problems it will create in the future.

Geothermal ground components last 50 years or longer, and the waste they produce can’t destroy ground water or increase soil toxicity. I understand that it is not the budget option, or even the middle of the road option that is still energy efficient comparatively, but this is one area where price is not my main concern. A desire to get geothermal is the reason I want to be cautious on other expenses, since I know that this will be a major expense. I don’t expect to make up for the cost of it in other areas, I just want to be mindful of other things that could contribute to a higher overall price tag.

I know that no new build can be perfect, and building itself is not inherently green, but I am trying to make the best choices for environmental impact first, and be Prepared for the fact that they will be the largest impact on our overall cost.

A 100 year payback only works if you burden your children with inheriting the home. You’re on a budget so an extra 50K for bragging rights should be shoved off the table.

Ground source heat pumps payback can vary greatly, depending on many factors, primarily the fuel source available. Our payback was 7 years, given our alternatives were fuel oil and propane. Air source heat pumps were not well represented at the time we switched to GSHP. We have been very pleased with the system.

I agree with Seabornman. The other place where GSHPs shine is when they are installed in old, drafty, poorly-insulated homes that are energy hogs. As building envelopes become more and more energy efficient, the cost of heating, ventilating and air conditioning a home becomes less significant and payback times for more efficient systems are extended.

MaryAlice- if it were about bragging rights I’d do something a hell of a lot more visible. No one will even know how we heat and cool the house. I’m doing it because I think the environmental payback is worth it, not my own. And I’m not “on a budget”, I’m creating a budget that I find reasonable for my personal wants and needs, limiting design costs (on things people may not normally know cost a decent amount) and accepting higher costs for other things I value.

The ductless heat pumps are fantastic for both winter and summer in places where ductwork doesn’t work or converted spaces that were not in the original HVAC plans (sunrooms, enclosed porches, garages, attics). I would not use them in new construction if an air-to-air heat pump with ductwork can be designed from the beginning.

Depending on your climate the air-to-air heat pump may be fine on its own, they have improved (not as efficient as the ductless but improved from before), For guest houses in the mid Atlantic we use air-air heat pumps with ductwork without needing to add electric or gas heat backup. Often there is a vented gas fireplace in the guesthouse anyway as a feature, that can also provide backup heat if needed for the very few cold days if needed.

Good luck with your build!

Expensive architectural features are everywhere and in everything. Very hard to say what gets cut for budget reasons since they are personal decisions. People sacrifice the window package all the time for cheap windows that look out of place on otherwise nice homes IMHO.

"On a budget" means about as much as "luxury". Everyone has a different frame of reference. Everything is on a budget and all of it is pretty luxurious by some standard.

Here is another consideration with GSHP. The US federal tax credit (making an assumption here that you are in the US) is fading away. Sure - it might get renewed but I have seen no appetite for that. The installers will face an uphill battle when it is gone. They will fold or move on to other things. Nothing mechanical can be guaranteed or even expected to last 50 years. Repair issues may be challenging.

There are plenty of 50 year panels still working. The lifespan is often talked about as the time they produce over 90% of original output. They still work after 25-30 years - just a little less than original. Presumably, we will get more efficient products over that time so our use will go down slightly over time. You would certainly not throw away a panel just because it only produced 80% of original output.

Sorry to derail your original question. I do think you need to ask local builders because things vary greatly. In my market, stucco is expensive - because it isn't done very often. Lots of things are like that.

Enough green features added and the actual building that you can afford to attach them all to becomes the size of a lawn mower shed. Cost added features have to provide enough real world monetary Value to the equation in order to make any sense. No one is putting in their personal wind generators for instance. There’s no Value there. Not compared to cost.