Hello everyone,
I’m asking out of curiosity if there are any homeowners here who have built a gable roof and deliberately chose not to make the knee wall as high as possible? Many are restricted by zoning regulations or planning permission, but some are not.
We built a gable roof in 2018/2019 with a knee wall height of 1.30 m (4 feet 3 inches) interior measurement, a roof pitch of 38 degrees, and just under 170 sqm (1,830 sq ft) of living space. Since we don’t have any specific zoning restrictions here, we could have built it differently or higher. However, we decided against it for the following reasons:
- We actually like sloped ceilings, as long as we’re not talking about a knee wall of only 40 cm (16 inches). It feels particularly cozy in the bedrooms.
- We are both only 170 cm (5 feet 7 inches) tall and therefore hardly feel restricted. If we were taller, it would probably be a different story.
- At the time, a gable roof with a very high knee wall didn’t appeal to us visually at all (it somehow looked too “leggy”); meanwhile, I (my partner does not) also find houses with a high knee wall and a shallower roof pitch very stylish. The only downside is that it reduces the size of the attic.
I’m really looking forward to your replies.
Best regards
I’m asking out of curiosity if there are any homeowners here who have built a gable roof and deliberately chose not to make the knee wall as high as possible? Many are restricted by zoning regulations or planning permission, but some are not.
We built a gable roof in 2018/2019 with a knee wall height of 1.30 m (4 feet 3 inches) interior measurement, a roof pitch of 38 degrees, and just under 170 sqm (1,830 sq ft) of living space. Since we don’t have any specific zoning restrictions here, we could have built it differently or higher. However, we decided against it for the following reasons:
- We actually like sloped ceilings, as long as we’re not talking about a knee wall of only 40 cm (16 inches). It feels particularly cozy in the bedrooms.
- We are both only 170 cm (5 feet 7 inches) tall and therefore hardly feel restricted. If we were taller, it would probably be a different story.
- At the time, a gable roof with a very high knee wall didn’t appeal to us visually at all (it somehow looked too “leggy”); meanwhile, I (my partner does not) also find houses with a high knee wall and a shallower roof pitch very stylish. The only downside is that it reduces the size of the attic.
I’m really looking forward to your replies.
Best regards
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
It looks more massive from the outside, and one has to like that. Exactly. But I wouldn’t associate massive with spaciousness.
However, this is getting off topic. The original poster is concerned with the knee wall, which is also utilized.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
From the outside, it looks bulkier, and that has to be to someone’s taste. Oh, so according to that, a Phaeton is "roomier" than a Passat 🙂
ypg schrieb:
The original poster is concerned with the knee wall that is actually used. Funny to explain to the original poster what their concern is 🙂
By the way, it would be the knee wall that you don’t use that is roomier *LOL*
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
B
bauherr2019_he17 Dec 2021 13:4611ant schrieb:
Oh, so a Phaeton is considered more "spacious" than a Passat then 🙂Nitpicking :-)
In my opinion, houses with a high knee wall simply appear bulky and therefore also larger. The fact that this is not necessarily the case is shown by many (but not all) people doing it precisely to gain more high-ceilinged space. So, as you already said, the perception of spaciousness should actually be the other way around: a low knee wall means enough floor area to make up for not having the higher ceiling. Increasing the floor area is probably more expensive than raising the knee wall.
I (the original poster) was simply interested in whether other homeowners, like us, did not use the full permitted height, and if so, what their reasons were.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
As you already said, the generosity should actually be evaluated the other way around: a lower knee wall means enough floor area to do without the high room. No, I meant it differently. Yvonne said
ypg schrieb:
The original poster is concerned about the knee wall, which is also being used. And that’s why I meant that the more generous part is the portion of the knee wall that extends beyond the amount needed for practical use. Luxury is always only what exceeds the necessary requirement.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
More square meters of floor area are probably more expensive than increasing the knee wall height. On the contrary: “replacement villas” are so popular because of the profit margin: if the attic is used as a full upper floor with the desired ceiling height, more courses of masonry are needed for the taller straight walls, and as a builder you can pocket the savings from replacing an elaborate roof structure with a simple flat cap. The same trick applies again with the staircase: a straight flight for budget-conscious clients is cheaper in planning, construction, production, and installation (profit booster stage 1 a to d), and additionally so plain that the customer gladly compensates for it with an upgrade in the finish – this upgrade is then profit booster stage 2.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Funny to explain to the OP what the OP actually means 🙂 Yes, it’s funny… that’s what happens when you ask someone directly and someone else (here the OP) answers instead.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
I believe that houses with high knee walls simply look bulky and therefore also larger. I would have been interested in the answer from @Deadree.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
A low knee wall = enough floor area to do without the high ceiling. More square meters of floor area are probably more expensive than raising the knee wall. If I have a box-shaped house of 160 sqm (1722 sq ft), I basically have 2 floors with 80 sqm (861 sq ft) of floor/living space each.
If I have a gable-roofed house of 160 sqm (1722 sq ft), I generally have 2 floors with 91 sqm (979 sq ft), but only 69 sqm (742 sq ft) of actual living space upstairs; the remaining 22 sqm (237 sq ft) provide extra attic floor area, which is still usable.
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
It looks more massive from the outside, and you have to like that. ypg schrieb:
Yes, it’s funny… that’s what happens when you ask one person a question and someone else (here the original poster) answers instead.
I would have been interested in the reply from @Deadree.
If I have a simple box-shaped house of 160 sqm (1,722 sq ft), I have, roughly, 2 floors with 80 sqm (861 sq ft) of floor/living area each.
If I have a gable roof house of 160 sqm (1,722 sq ft), then, roughly and generally speaking, I have 2 floors with 91 sqm (979 sq ft), but upstairs only 69 sqm (743 sq ft) of actual living area. The remaining 22 sqm (237 sq ft) is additional floor space on the attic level, which is still usable. Why is a house with 2 full stories and a gable roof automatically considered "massive"?
I honestly have never heard that before.
I find our house quite charming from the outside 😉
And we like it even more from the inside!
Thanks to the high ceilings, we were able to create a great gallery area near the front door, which wouldn’t have been as impressive with a standard ceiling height, for example.
I’m very grateful to our architect for suggesting this to us back then, and we would build it the same way again—even if some here apparently see it differently.
Similar topics