In today’s construction landscape, applying cost-saving strategies in construction has become more critical than ever. Managing costs without compromising on quality is a challenge every investor faces. With rising material prices and increasing demand for efficiency, every investor is looking for strategic ways to minimise costs—without sacrificing the architectural essence of a project. In one of our recent projects, a duplex house in Lower Austria, we encountered exactly that challenge. What emerged was a creative, well-coordinated “Plan B”—a cost-conscious solution that still delivered architectural value and quality.
Balancing Quality and Budget: A Shared Objective
From the outset, both our team and the investor were aligned: quality should remain high, but costs needed to be controlled. This meant identifying potential savings—so-called “Einsparungspositionen”—that could reduce expenditure without undermining design, function, or user experience. – One major source of savings came from material choices. Where possible, we sourced materials locally to reduce transport costs and support regional suppliers. In some cases, however, ordering from abroad proved more affordable despite logistics. Striking the right balance between environmental responsibility, availability, and cost-efficiency was a constant consideration. – Another key factor was the method of construction. Prefabricated components, for example, allowed for faster assembly on site, reducing labour costs and minimising waste. These decisions were never purely economic—they were architectural, too. Each modification had to preserve spatial quality and project identity.
Adapting Design: The Front Façade
One of the clearest examples of cost-saving strategies in construction appears in the front façade design. The original concept combined a pergola and carport, using solid wood and glass to create filtered light and dynamic shadow play at the entrance. We designed the carport as an integral part of the architecture—anchored on one side, open on the other—while strategic landscaping enhanced privacy between units.
During the planning phase, we adjusted the design to reduce costs. Instead of building a glazed solid wood pergola, we opted for an aluminium-sheeted roof. To simplify coordination between contractors, we replaced the cantilevered structure with a column-supported one. We also decided to omit the aluminium privacy screen planned along the edge of the plot.
Despite these modifications, the architectural intention remained legible. We preserved the spatial sequence and material logic—though realised through different means.
This rendering shows the initial design for the front façade of the duplex, combining a pergola and carport with solid wood (“Vollholz”) and glass elements. The intention was to create dynamic shadows, maximise daylight at the entrance, and integrate a privacy-enhancing aluminium screen. This image reflects the architectural vision prior to cost-saving adaptations.
The built version of the front façade reflects practical adaptations made during construction. The pergola was replaced with a simplified aluminium roof, and the carport was supported by structural pillars to address complex connections. Privacy elements were reduced, and natural light was partially limited. Despite these changes, the architectural intention remained intact, demonstrating how cost-saving strategies can be integrated without losing core design quality.
Refining the Rear Façade
On the garden-facing side, cost-saving adjustments became evident. The original design featured timber-framed windows and articulated detailing, but we simplified the façade during the planning phase. We initially replaced the timber frames with metal for durability, then removed them entirely, opting for frameless glazing to create a clean ribbon-window (“Fensterband”) effect.
We also streamlined the rainwater management concept. Although we considered integrating a concealed drainage pipe into the façade, local contractors expressed concerns about thermal bridges and potential leakage. While technically feasible, we decided to omit these complex details to better align with budget constraints and construction practices.
The result is minimalist and visually coherent—less refined than the original vision, perhaps, but guided by practical trade-offs rather than compromises in design intent.
This rendering illustrates the original rear façade design, with framed windows intended to express rhythm and depth. The concept included high-quality timber frames and an integrated rainwater system concealed within the façade. These details aimed to enrich material expression while keeping technical complexity hidden—prior to later cost-saving adaptations.
The completed rear façade reflects a simplified execution of the original design. Timber and metal frames were removed in favour of frameless glazing, achieving a ribbon-window (“Fensterband”) effect. A concealed rainwater pipe was omitted, and a standard drainage solution adopted. The result remains visually clean and cohesive, while aligning with construction efficiency and budget constraints.
Trade-Offs in the Design Process
These modifications brought both benefits and limitations. The entrance remained protected and cohesive with the overall design, but some qualities were lost. The pergola no longer introduced dynamic shadows, and without the privacy screen, the threshold between properties became more open. However, the result still aligned with user needs and market realities.
Integrating BIM for Smarter Cost Planning
To support these decisions, we relied heavily on Building Information Modelling (BIM). Our digital twin allowed us to simulate construction scenarios, calculate quantities, and test financial outcomes in advance. This made it easier to explain options to the client, visualise adjustments, and stay within budget without surprises.
BIM enabled better collaboration, enhanced design coordination, and allowed for faster responses to evolving needs. For us as architects, it also meant keeping control over design quality—ensuring that simplifications remained intentional, not accidental.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Cost savings require more than trimming budgets. They demand creative thinking, honest conversations, and clear priorities. It was essential to manage expectations and communicate transparently—particularly with the investor—so that each decision reflected shared values and real needs.
This project demonstrates that architectural quality is not tied to high costs. It can also emerge from smart decisions, coordinated processes, and the ability to adapt.
The duplex was sold quickly to young families who appreciated the spatial clarity, material selection, and simplicity of execution. While the final result was “Plan B” on paper, it was still “Plan A” in spirit.
