ᐅ Retaining Higher-Level Neighboring Properties: L-Shaped Retaining Walls and Tips

gutentag schrieb:

What is the finished floor level of the house? Ground floor and terrace?

The house has a finished floor level of 21.885 meters (71.8 feet).

The terrace is currently a lower priority, but we would like to make it accessible without exiting the living room.

WilderSueden schrieb:

I understand, nobody likes to lose usable land. But it won’t be possible without some loss.
With limited space, I would tend to go for a heavy retaining wall. Using L-shaped concrete blocks for the height would cost you almost a meter (3 feet) for the footing. Concrete blocks with dimensions 40 x 40 x 80 cm (16 x 16 x 31.5 inches) would mean stacking 3 blocks, but probably only about 60 cm (24 inches) of space loss. Since the joints are permeable, you can save some space on drainage behind it.
Alternatively, you could do a cast-in-place concrete wall on site. Where we often vacation, a neighbor built one directly on the boundary. But even then, you lose about half a meter (20 inches) because of the drainage strip required behind it.

Thank you very much for the advice, I will take another look at it.

The option of cast-in-place concrete was mentioned to me by the gentleman yesterday as an alternative, but it seems to be quite expensive. He will now prepare offers for both the L-shaped retaining walls and the concrete wall. Then we will see.

Yaso2.0 schrieb:

Yes, they have changed, among other things because my husband did not want a steep driveway.

The problem isn’t really the heights themselves, but the fact that I need/want to support the structure without affecting the neighboring properties.

Can’t you simply raise the ground level on the plot?

That’s over 60 cm (24 inches) deeper than I originally suggested. You’ll just have to accept the additional costs now. I didn’t optimize it for nothing. The driveway could have still been dug deeper. Now you already need larger retaining wall elements at the driveway.

Now you have the extreme costs for the retaining walls and the unnecessary soil removal.

I would now also implement the proposal to move the retaining wall 1 m (3 ft) into the property. Then slope the top with a 1:2 gradient towards the south and west sides.

Of course, you could also build right up to the boundary, but that will be much more expensive.

gutentag schrieb:

That’s more than 60 cm (24 inches) deeper than I originally suggested.

Oh, it’s you… with a new username. I had to realize that first, sorry!

I also made that proposal, but other circumstances on site came up that led to this decision. It’s a long story and unfortunately cannot be changed.

gutentag schrieb:

I would now go ahead with the proposal to move the retaining wall 1 m (3.3 ft) into the property, but then slope the top with a 1:2 gradient towards the south and west sides.

Of course, you could also place it right on the boundary, but that would get really expensive.

I’m not complaining about the costs themselves; I’m simply trying to find a cost-optimized, but above all, space-saving solution.

TmMike_2 schrieb:

Can't you just fill in the plot?

The house is already built. She wants it to be lower. So why fill it in? In my opinion, your suggestion doesn’t make sense.

gutentag schrieb:

The house is already built. She wants to go deeper. So why fill in? In my opinion, your suggestion doesn't make sense.

Sorry, I think I got a bit mixed up in the flow of information here.
Wouldn't it have been more sensible to address this before the house was built?
Best regards