ᐅ Construction Project 200m² – Bungalow or Ground Floor plus Upper Floor?
Created on: 26 Dec 2018 12:41
S
SMarkus86
Hello everyone,
we are planning to build a single-family house soon. We have a large plot of land (approximately 37m (121 feet) north-south by 43m (141 feet) east-west). The plot is very flat but slopes downward overall from north to south by about 0.8m (2.6 feet).
Now the question is which type of house we want to build. Ideally, we would like a ground floor and an upper floor with a knee wall of at least 2m (6.6 feet) and a gable roof with about a 20° pitch. Unfortunately, the local council is opposing this because the house must fit into the surrounding area: next to it are two houses with a ground floor and upper floor with a 0.75m (2.5 feet) knee wall and a 50° roof pitch. This is described as a "Swabian, village-style architecture."
According to the regulations, the allowed maximum wall height is 4.30m (14 feet), and the roof pitch can be between 15° and 50°.
Our living space requirements are as follows:
- large living area (kitchen, dining area, and living room combined)
- 2 offices
- 2 children’s bedrooms
- basement (including a guest room)
- total living area around 200m² (2,153 sq ft)
This leaves us with two possible house types:
1. Bungalow
One option would be a large bungalow with 200m² (2,153 sq ft) of living space. There is definitely enough space for this on the plot. However, it is important to us that the bungalow is only partially basemented. This would likely require a technical separation between the two halves of the building.
2. Ground floor + upper floor
Unfortunately, we are not fans of many sloped ceilings, so we are not yet sure how to implement this intelligently. We considered a dormer but are not really enthusiastic about it.
Our questions now are:
- How different are the construction costs for options 1 and 2 (rough estimate, especially regarding a partial basement for the bungalow)?
- What other advantages or disadvantages speak for one or the other option?
Thank you very much in advance for your answers.
Best regards,
Markus
we are planning to build a single-family house soon. We have a large plot of land (approximately 37m (121 feet) north-south by 43m (141 feet) east-west). The plot is very flat but slopes downward overall from north to south by about 0.8m (2.6 feet).
Now the question is which type of house we want to build. Ideally, we would like a ground floor and an upper floor with a knee wall of at least 2m (6.6 feet) and a gable roof with about a 20° pitch. Unfortunately, the local council is opposing this because the house must fit into the surrounding area: next to it are two houses with a ground floor and upper floor with a 0.75m (2.5 feet) knee wall and a 50° roof pitch. This is described as a "Swabian, village-style architecture."
According to the regulations, the allowed maximum wall height is 4.30m (14 feet), and the roof pitch can be between 15° and 50°.
Our living space requirements are as follows:
- large living area (kitchen, dining area, and living room combined)
- 2 offices
- 2 children’s bedrooms
- basement (including a guest room)
- total living area around 200m² (2,153 sq ft)
This leaves us with two possible house types:
1. Bungalow
One option would be a large bungalow with 200m² (2,153 sq ft) of living space. There is definitely enough space for this on the plot. However, it is important to us that the bungalow is only partially basemented. This would likely require a technical separation between the two halves of the building.
2. Ground floor + upper floor
Unfortunately, we are not fans of many sloped ceilings, so we are not yet sure how to implement this intelligently. We considered a dormer but are not really enthusiastic about it.
Our questions now are:
- How different are the construction costs for options 1 and 2 (rough estimate, especially regarding a partial basement for the bungalow)?
- What other advantages or disadvantages speak for one or the other option?
Thank you very much in advance for your answers.
Best regards,
Markus
Like the elephant, I'm also not entirely sure whether there is a binding development plan here or if construction can be approved under Section 34.
With Section 34, you can certainly be confident, and the chances of approval are not bad. The only limitation here is the required setback areas. Infill development does not necessarily mean that you have to match the exact style of the surrounding buildings, but rather that the type and manner of the development must harmonize with the existing neighborhood.
So, you are unlikely to be allowed to build a multi-story apartment building with many units in an area mainly consisting of single-family homes, or commercial buildings in a residential zone, for example. Many local councils are not aware of this; they often fail due to their lack of knowledge and believe that infill means the new house must look exactly like the others around it. But that is not correct.
If you have enough space and the required setbacks allow it, in my opinion, there is no real obstacle to building a single-family home with a knee wall height of 2m (6.6 ft). Even if the council prefers a more traditional rural style or what they imagine that to be (often very different perspectives).
In this case, my advice is: find a capable architect and work through the higher-level building authority (usually the district office). The architect should have connections with this building authority and be willing to advocate for your building application. You can achieve much more than the local council imagines in its wildest (Alpine) dreams while still remaining fully within the limits of Section 34.
It’s a different story, of course, if there is a valid development plan. In that case, you are much more restricted, and the specifications for knee wall height, roof shape, etc., are indeed binding.
A 200sqm (2,150 sqft) single-story home is definitely possible but requires good, thoughtful planning. Possibly as an L-shaped bungalow or with staggered sections. There are many interesting and attractive options. Typically, however, a bungalow will be more expensive than the same square meter area spread over two floors.
If you can avoid roof slopes, I would always recommend doing so. Comfort can be achieved in other ways, and you won’t have to compromise as much when furnishing the house.
With Section 34, you can certainly be confident, and the chances of approval are not bad. The only limitation here is the required setback areas. Infill development does not necessarily mean that you have to match the exact style of the surrounding buildings, but rather that the type and manner of the development must harmonize with the existing neighborhood.
So, you are unlikely to be allowed to build a multi-story apartment building with many units in an area mainly consisting of single-family homes, or commercial buildings in a residential zone, for example. Many local councils are not aware of this; they often fail due to their lack of knowledge and believe that infill means the new house must look exactly like the others around it. But that is not correct.
If you have enough space and the required setbacks allow it, in my opinion, there is no real obstacle to building a single-family home with a knee wall height of 2m (6.6 ft). Even if the council prefers a more traditional rural style or what they imagine that to be (often very different perspectives).
In this case, my advice is: find a capable architect and work through the higher-level building authority (usually the district office). The architect should have connections with this building authority and be willing to advocate for your building application. You can achieve much more than the local council imagines in its wildest (Alpine) dreams while still remaining fully within the limits of Section 34.
It’s a different story, of course, if there is a valid development plan. In that case, you are much more restricted, and the specifications for knee wall height, roof shape, etc., are indeed binding.
A 200sqm (2,150 sqft) single-story home is definitely possible but requires good, thoughtful planning. Possibly as an L-shaped bungalow or with staggered sections. There are many interesting and attractive options. Typically, however, a bungalow will be more expensive than the same square meter area spread over two floors.
If you can avoid roof slopes, I would always recommend doing so. Comfort can be achieved in other ways, and you won’t have to compromise as much when furnishing the house.
Climbee schrieb:
Insertion does not necessarily mean that you have to build in the exact same style as the surrounding buildings, but that the way of building must fit in. Yes and no, in practice the requirement to blend in involves a lot of discretion. If I remember correctly, R.Hotzenplotz had to remove a storey height somewhere.
I now suspect that in this case there is a combination of §34 and local regulations – we’ve encountered this before in the form of “no development plan, but building line requirements.”
Some people once hit their heads on a sloping roof as children; others are simply reluctant to include areas with less than full standing height – the obsession with extremely high knee walls is usually irrational. From a “psycho-architectural” perspective, a knee wall about head height tends to have the opposite effect of the desired high vertical wall sections, creating instead the feeling of a lower ceiling.
Practically speaking, I always point out that the height of the knee wall also determines the dividing line between façade windows and roof windows, and dormers or cross-gables become necessary if you want façade windows above that line; it often even leads to relocating windows to a gable side when you would prefer them on the eaves side.
In this sense, knee wall heights of around 90 to 130 cm (35 to 51 inches) measured from the finished floor level are practical values. Some homeowners believe they need 180 or even 200 cm (71 to 79 inches), but these heights are rarely found in model homes for good reasons. Maybe if they were built that way, people would be dissuaded.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics