ᐅ Building with Concrete vs. the 2016 Energy Saving Regulations

New
@@11ant
We want to achieve a surface like this example:

Alternatively:
br.de dream houses revisited
A House on the Mountain

Inside, it should also remain raw overall, combined with lots of wood.
We don’t really care how this is ultimately done. We want to avoid a “simple” plaster exterior as much as possible, because it just looks boring – it should look different.
House 1 meets the KfW 70 standard – and since the energy saving regulation isn’t just about insulation but a combination of insulation, heating, etc., we thought it would be feasible since we will likely use geothermal energy.
An article on Welt.de explained this as follows:
Gas and oil are fossil fuels with a factor of 1.1
Heat pumps 0.4–0.6 and pellets 0.2.
So anyone installing a “poor” heating system here will need more insulation...

What are your thoughts on the sandwich method? Opinions?

Regarding whether it is allowed in the building zone: I have no requirements about how my facade has to look in the building zone – so why shouldn’t I be allowed to do it?

alegend schrieb:

In the end, we really don’t care how it happens.

That already sounds "feasible," but ...

alegend schrieb:

Inside, the look should overall remain raw, combined with plenty of wood.

... I think that you are overall imagining an architectural style where cars with stars, propellers, cats, or horses belong to a coherent overall picture, and where both spouses come from well-off families.

Proud architects of such designer houses like to emphasize that their buildings were actually low-cost per cubic meter—compared to what people in places like Grünwald might build, perhaps.

If you earn in regions with statutory health insurance, I would kindly suggest considering whether "setting accents" rather than a "full designer house" might actually be sufficient.

A frequently underestimated feature of "clear architecture" is that it does not go well with detailed elements. I don’t want to say outright that you shouldn’t wear a patterned tie in such a house—but once there are more than four magazines on the coffee table, it no longer looks quite as designed. And: what do the little ones think when, for aesthetic reasons, there’s no teddy bear-shaped sausage allowed in the avant-garde house?

Aside from the fact that one can also grow tired of clarity: because of the mentioned problematic correlation with small-scale detail, I would at least exclude it from the children’s rooms and also say that it only really fits a “clean desk” in the study. A house simply feels different when lived in than when photographed.

Personally, I also find the “effect” of certain materials stronger when they are used less richly—so as “accents” rather than “solid” or “uniform.”

alegend schrieb:

On the outside, we want to avoid a "plain simple" plaster finish as much as possible—because it just looks boring—it should look different.

That seems to me a good working motto as a "credo"—and as the "core" message to the designer. I would initially reduce it to that—you can always expand it later if you don’t recognize yourself in the result.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

@11ant
So, to sum up, you’re basically suggesting that a concrete house is only feasible for high earners and that it feels monotonous, dull, or bare inside. Therefore, you believe that “living” there in a comfortable way is hardly possible—is that an accurate summary?

Regarding the costs… the house mentioned in the BR report, which was very large, was built by two teachers, as far as I remember, who were quite young—so in my opinion, they were not high earners. Of course, you never know what capital is available…
In general, the house wasn’t bare or “over-styled” as you might think—it is lived in and feels lively (to us).

I cannot agree with the opinion that concrete equals cold and uninviting…
We currently own a condominium, and honestly, there’s almost never anything lying around, not even one magazine—and yet we feel quite comfortable. Still?!
I mostly read CONTRA from you—why is that? I think it’s simply not your taste.

Taste is always open to debate, and I appreciate your suggestions, but I would be more interested in the core question regarding feasibility and possibilities.

alegend schrieb:

So, you’re basically suggesting that a concrete house is only feasible for high earners?

No – I just wanted to point out that clear lines and visually simple designs don’t go hand in hand with lower-cost building; on the contrary, the precision required for details in an almost “exposed structural shell” is expensive. In other words, a stylish house corresponds to having a bigger “nest egg” saved up.

alegend schrieb:

and that the interior simply feels monotonous, boring, or sparse. So living comfortably is hardly possible – is that an accurate summary?

Not monotonous, but strongly dominant if used in large amounts. Raw concrete effectively rules out curtain rails and tends to overpower crochet doilies. That’s something to be aware of, and whether you like it is a matter of personal taste.

alegend schrieb:

I mostly read CONTRA from you – why is that? I think it just isn’t your style.

That impression is misleading. Stylistically, I’m aligned with Botta, Böhm, and Bienefeld, or also with Mies, Johnson, or Meier, and especially Olgiati (senior). And somewhat more classic with Neutra or Ruf. Wright, by the way, created some beautiful works that you could replicate using stones from the Liapor range.

alegend schrieb:

but I’d be more interested in the core question regarding feasibility and possibilities.

Absolutely, happy to. It’s feasible, as you can see from your own current examples. Walls 50 cm (20 inches) thick or more consume a significant amount of floor area. Hence my suggestion to consider aerated concrete or lightweight expanded clay aggregate blocks, with which you could reduce thickness by about 10 cm (4 inches) using a monolithic structure with plaster. If you find a skilled tradesperson who combines plastering, stucco work, and terrazzo, they can give you the same look with a more energy-efficient wall construction.

Regarding “sandwich,” you would need to specify more clearly what exactly we’re discussing. For me, “sandwich” always means both sides are “bread,” so external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS) do not qualify as such.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Hello

It already looks great.
I could imagine that something like this made from precast concrete elements using a double-shell construction is possible
and not necessarily significantly more expensive than sand-lime bricks and facing bricks.

In our house, I have a 250m2 (2691 sq ft) exposed concrete slab, and during the planning phase, because I wanted some color, I briefly contacted Heidelberger Beton.
A precast concrete manufacturer in your area could also be the right contact.

Olli

@11ant

11ant schrieb:
It may seem otherwise. Stylistically, you’ll find me aligned with Botta, Böhm, and Bienefeld, as well as Mies, Johnson, or Meier, and especially with Olgiati (senior). More classically, with Neutra or Ruf. By the way, Wright did some great work that could be achieved using stones from the Liapor range.

I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know any of them. I’m a layman—I just want a house that we like. Until now, I haven’t been interested in architecture.
Do you possibly have pictures of which Liapor stones you’re referring to?

By sandwich construction, I meant concrete outside, concrete inside, with insulation in the middle.

The advantage of precast concrete elements would be that you might have a different colored facade on the outside (or not—that’s something to decide).
The downside is clearly the challenge of prefabricating all the ducts, switch boxes, etc.
Changes afterwards are then difficult to implement.

@wrobel
Yes, near us there is Heidelbercement, which would probably be the best place to start.