I think Papa Bear's description is closest to what we call a bi-level around here. Only difference being that when he says the bottom floor is halfway below grade, this would normally only be true in the case that the house is sited on a sloping lot. Otherwise, Papa bear, we're on the same page. Fishindude is def thinking of a different style, what we call a "split" or split-level around here. The bi-level only has 2 levels, as Papa bear said. And yes, both these designs were popular in the 60's and 70's, as Fishindude pointed out.
The cost advantage of a bi-level is the savings on not building a basement, I think. In the NY metro suburbs, this style (and the split, which I'm not considering building because I think the construction costs of it would be a lot higher) still do very well on resale. Our housing stock here is generally older than most other parts of the country, so maybe they resell so well because we northeasterners consider them to be sort of new even when they're actually 50-60 yrs. old. We tend to keep our houses going more than the south and SW parts of the country do. New construction is almost exclusively neo-colonials, which are usually expected to come with full basements, so the cost of construction of the latter is a lot higher. In my case, I'm trying to get the most bang for the buck in terms of usable square footage, so that's why I'm leaning towards a bi-level. And that was the reason for my question about whether my impression that this style was the most economical psf was true. As for what you mentioned about all the stairs, Fishindude, the entry door on a basic bi-level could be and often is dropped to the ground level so you essentially have a 2 story on a slab, or what we call a raised ranch here. As to your cautions on the shape, PMJL34, I'm not going for anything fancy. Just a rectangle. Not meant to be mine or anyone else's dream home.
I know there are tons of variables that go into a psf cost, so that's really why I didn't pose that question. I guess the percentage cost of the dried- in shell would depend on the difficulty of the site, so for these purposes, I'm assuming an average, flat building site, and ignoring the costs of land, and city /sewer water hookup costs, which I can get from the town. So I get a price on the dried in shell erected on a slab and I know how much that will cost (give or take, I know). I'm trying to ballpark what percentage of the way I am to habitability, as I tried to describe in my OP. Joenorm's 30-40% estimate on the dried-in shell is appreciated, but since he DIYed it for the shell and will apparently have pros complete the inside, it kind of makes the equation lopsided, so maybe the interior costs are a greater proportion than usual. Also, I wasn't clear as to whether he ignored his land costs in his equation, as I'm trying to do with mine.
Thanks to all of you who are taking a stab at this to help me. Hoping to hear more people chime in if possible.
