Sanity check: €147,500 renovation budget for a 90 m² studio in Rome

[AdaChase]

I have checked the broad scope against a preliminary €147,500 budget for this 90 m² Rome studio. What remains unclear is how much of that figure depends on assumptions that have not been tested.

The work covers the kitchen, bathrooms, floors, decoration, electrical inspection and some energy improvements; there is no planned extension. Because the building is older, however, the condition behind the walls, the available plumbing routes and the order of the work could materially change the cost. Permit timing may also affect the programme.

What level of reserve would be proportionate here, and what should a surveyor or contractor investigate before bids are fixed? I am less worried about choosing finishes than discovering that access or hidden defects make the current sequence unworkable.

 

[gardensAndPebble]

Before any opening-up, I’d want a meaningful reserve rather than a token percentage—perhaps around 15%, with more held back if the wall, plumbing routes and electrical condition remain unknown. Ask each bidder to state what happens if wiring needs replacement, pipes cannot use the assumed route, or the wall requires structural input. Those exclusions will tell you whether €147,500 is genuinely comparable between bids.

 

[EarlyWindow]

Are the kitchen and bathrooms staying in their current locations? Moving wet areas could affect plumbing access far more than changing finishes. Also, is the wall definitely being opened, or is that only a possible layout change? I would settle those two points before choosing a contingency.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

“Electrical checks” is too vague for budgeting. Does it mean testing the existing installation and fixing isolated faults, or allowing for broader replacement if it fails inspection? The contractor should price the assumed scope and provide a separate rate or allowance for the larger outcome. Otherwise a low quote can simply be carrying a large exclusion.

 

[arlo.slate]

Before the quotations are locked, there is a choice between funding uncertainty and investigating it. A larger reserve helps with the bill, but it does not tell you whether opening the wall will delay plumbing, electrical work or the permit programme.

Can the wall, damp-risk areas and accessible pipe routes be inspected before the contractors finalise their prices? If access is limited by occupied or shared parts of the building, that fact would change how useful an opening-up exercise can be. I would pay to turn the accessible unknowns into defined work first, then retain a contingency for everything that still cannot be seen.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

Agreed, although opening-up investigations also need a plan. I’d ask who makes good any inspection holes, whether occupied units or shared areas limit access, and whether the plumber and electrician can inspect before the main contractor finalises the programme. Otherwise the survey findings arrive after the quote and don’t actually improve it.

 

[balanced_ledger]

Material lead times belong in the same conversation. Get the contractor to identify which items must be selected before demolition and which can wait until dimensions are confirmed. Ordering everything early risks mistakes; ordering everything after strip-out risks idle time. Permit or building approvals should also appear as explicit programme assumptions, with the Rome-specific position confirmed by the appropriate local technician.

 

[EarlyWindow]

Maria’s point about programme assumptions is important. I’d also ask what “moderate energy upgrades” means in measurable scope. Is the allowance for specific insulation work, heating changes, glazing, controls, or merely investigation? Different answers affect wall build-ups, electrical demand and the order in which finishes can close.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

A workable sequence might be: confirm layout and approval needs; inspect structure, moisture, services and access; define energy measures; obtain revised trade scopes; then order long-lead items. Demolition should have decision points built in. If hidden damage appears, someone needs authority to price and approve the response before the next trade covers it up.

 

[otis_details]

Don’t overlook moisture just because there is no visible staining. Ask whether walls and floors will be tested in the bathroom, kitchen and any area adjoining external or shared fabric. More importantly, establish what the contractor excludes if damp is found: drying time, removal beyond the planned area, substrate repairs and reinstatement can all interrupt flooring and paint.

 

[teaAndTimber]

I’d request an exclusions schedule in plain language. Typical questions for this project: who pays for debris handling and difficult access, protection of common areas, temporary disconnection, making good after service routes, final testing, and extra visits caused by delayed materials? Not all will be relevant, but unanswered items are exactly where a seemingly complete renovation figure becomes slippery.

 

[FriendlyJournal]

There is a risk of investigating forever. For a 90 m² studio, I would prioritise only findings that could change the layout, safety scope or programme: the wall, electrical condition, plumbing routes and moisture. Minor substrate surprises can remain contingency items. The aim is not zero uncertainty; it is preventing one early assumption from forcing several trades to redo work.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

That seems like the sensible balance. I’d turn the €147,500 into three columns: firmly defined work, provisional allowances, and excluded risks. Then keep the contingency outside the base contract rather than quietly distributing it through every line. Once the wall status, wet-area locations, electrical assumption and energy measures are clear, the appropriate reserve should be much easier to judge.