Renovation budget for a 235 m² student housing in Santiago (4 bed)

[IsaWilde]

Hidden moisture is the item making me question the whole allowance, not the visible finishes. The preliminary budget is CLP 364,000,000 for renovating a 235 m², four-bedroom student housing property in Santiago, with no extension or other structural addition.

The proposed work includes the kitchen and bathrooms, new flooring and paint, electrical assessment and some energy improvements. Before fixing a contingency percentage, I want the surveyor or contractor to identify moisture paths, inaccessible plumbing, possible electrical upgrades, material lead times and anything excluded from opening or reinstating walls. Would you reserve separately for concealed defects and later design choices? I am prepared to reduce the finish specification if that keeps essential work properly funded.

 

[round_stone]

I would provisionally hold 15%, with the ability to move closer to 20% until the intrusive investigation and electrical assessment are complete. That is a planning allowance, not a Santiago rule.

Ask whether the quote includes opening and reinstating walls, replacement of concealed pipework, panel or circuit upgrades, moisture remediation, waste removal and protection of retained areas. Also require each exclusion to be priced separately where possible; “not included” is where the budget can disappear.

 

[bikesAndEcho]

Before choosing a percentage, how many bathrooms are involved, and can the building be empty during the work? Working around occupants would change sequencing considerably.

I would also split contingency into two pots: concealed conditions and design changes. If they remain combined, upgraded finishes can consume the money intended for failing plumbing or electrical work.

 

[oren_young]

I’m not convinced that automatically raising the contingency to 20% solves the problem. CLP 364,000,000 across 235 m² is already a substantial overall allowance; the more useful exercise is testing whether each trade has a complete scope.

“No extension” does not mean no structural risk. Existing cracking, altered walls or damp-damaged timber could still matter. I would want the survey to distinguish cosmetic defects from anything requiring structural input before demolition begins.

 

[full_story]

For sequencing, investigate first, then freeze the wet-area layouts, then coordinate plumbing and electrical routes before closing walls or ordering finishes. Put material lead times beside the programme rather than treating procurement as a separate list.

Ask the contractor who is responsible for permit timing, what assumptions were made about working hours and access, and which items are allowances rather than fixed prices. Those answers may be more valuable than negotiating the headline figure.

 

[bikesAndEcho]

I agree with Ines that a larger reserve cannot compensate for an incomplete scope, but I would still protect a separate sum for concealed conditions. A practical next step is a room-by-room schedule showing demolition, retained elements, new work, assumptions and exclusions.

Then compare that schedule with the plumbing-access plan, moisture findings and electrical assessment. Any item appearing in one but not the contractor’s price becomes a question before signing, not a surprise during construction.