Steel Building Most Efficient building size. ($/sqft)

[jcouch1]

Hi,
Long time no poster here... I'm getting ready to build a shop.
I've got a dirt pad built, it's ~85x85 +/-5' each way sloped to grade.
The original plan was a 45x70x16 building w/ a 30x70' lean-to.
I thought i had everything nailed down, got quotes, etc. Then I started wondering....

Is there a more efficient size building in terms of $/sqft... not wood, not stick frame, just a more efficiently built building due to its size.
Maybe a 50x80' w/o lean to or w/ a smaller lean to makes more sense.

Has anyone done this sort of comparison?
Hopefully RedHead chimes in.

Hoping to have building up by end of summer.

Any other design consideration (layout, etc).
Only forseable change would be moving driveway East (away from house) to property line and having a shared driveway w/ neighbor.

 

[kd3pc]

I would NEVER, on purpose do a "shared" anything in real estate, especially with that much property available. Never.

as to your question, the only efficiency for $/sq ft is smaller, shorter walls and so on.

Whether a lean to will meet your needs is up to you, it certainly could be cheaper, but possibly not.

Check with your metal supplier, he may have some discounts on wider/narrower and longer/shorter materials that he may have on hand from another project or the wrong color or so on.

 

[readhead]

Square foot pricing doesn't do well with metal buildings. You are buying weight. Anything you can do to reduce weight will save you money. Length is usually cheaper to buy than width. If you want a lean to buy it now. It will never be less expensive. The columns on the lean to side need to be designed for the load.

 

[TTMotorsports]

Going from 40x80 to 50x80 made my cost go from 30k to 35k. Going 40x100 would have added 3700 to cost. So it's a little more to go wider than longer in my experience. I went with 50 deep to fit my truck and trailer hooked up in the shop.

 

[jcouch1]

I would NEVER, on purpose do a "shared" anything in real estate, especially with that much property available. Never.

The thought here is to allow me to pasture the front 'yard' and not have the wasted strip. The driveway would be half his property/half mine.

What are your concerns?

 

[Spencer Was Here]

A perfectly square building, regardless of size, gives you the most (with one exception) square footage, for the least amount of perimeter walls. The only more efficient shape would be a perfect circle.

For instance, let us use a 10' x 10' shed as an example. That gives you 100 square feet of space for 40 lineal feet of walls. If you reconfigured those 40 lineal feet of walls to be a shed that was 5' x 15', you would only end up with 75 square feet of space for the same 40 lineal feet of walls.

 

[kd3pc]

The thought here is to allow me to pasture the front 'yard' and not have the wasted strip. The driveway would be half his property/half mine.

What are your concerns?

In every case those "agreements" come up as an issue, usually maintenance and upkeep. Then there is the what happens when the property, his or yours is sold? Unless there was a deed attachment, your agreement becomes negotiable and the new owner of the other half does not see things your way.

At least have the driveway itself 100% on your property, and his "half" just a right away so you can keep the driveway, should new owners not participate.

We were in an agreement, and the new owners read the deed one way and the lawyers another. We prevailed, but at a very expensive, time consuming and stressful legal battle. The others I have been involved in all caused similar or expensive issues.

Same goes with shared septic and shared wells and so on.

 

[sberry]

Agree, somewhat square takes less wall. I have a storage, 60x100 w 20x100 lean. If I was to do this again might pull a little more scratch together, 70 wide and 30 lean. Make it a little less fussy about angle parking inside and 20 is really a bit narrow for the lean.
My shop is 80x80, the only reason to go 100 long would have been a little more wall space. With a little less stuff I could have made it on a smaller building where it would be a bit easier to heat and less walking.

 

[tez929rr]

A steel building company like Mueller can price different options for you. When we built our first steel building, we went 40 by 60. The contractor told me that the main support beams are so expensive that going skinny and long was cheaper in general. Pricing the various options is the only way to be sure. 15 years after the first one we built a 30 by 80 with a lot bigger slab (due to slope and overhang) and it was the same cost as the 40 by 60.

 

[readhead]

Width equals weight. As the span gets longer the rafter size gets larger. Back to my original statement, you are buying weight.

 

[sberry]

Yes, rafters are more money but they cover more and less of them.