ᐅ House extends above ground level – how much soil can be backfilled (with shallow basement)?

Created on: 15 Oct 2022 19:11
M
Machu Picchu
Hello everyone,

we are now in the final phase of our house construction.

Because the sewage system on our property is not far below ground level and we did not install a sewage lift system, our basement was only excavated to a shallow depth.

The ceiling height of the basement rooms is 2.50m (8 feet 2 inches), as these areas are intended to be living spaces, unlike the neighboring houses, whose basement heights are lower.

As a result, our front door and the two patio doors are positioned much higher than those of the neighboring houses. In the next few days, soil will be filled up to the level of the terrace and front doors.

I do not want this to turn into a discussion about different construction methods; instead, I am looking for advice on how to best handle this somewhat unusual situation.

First, some photos:



Marked in red are the two patio doors. Soil will be filled up to just below these patio doors, except, of course, at light wells and shafts. The terrace will be paved around the corner, following the two indicated patio doors (because we wanted two sunny sides on the terrace for different times of the day). To the left of the single-leaf patio door (where the exterior plaster ends), a retaining wall will be built from the terrace level down to the ground.



This is a front view. On the left, the construction staircase leads up to the entrance door. The front door is at the same level as the two patio doors.



Here is the view from the back.



This is the view from the back toward the front door.



And here is another rear view including the neighboring houses.

As planned, as mentioned, soil will be filled up to the level of the house and terrace doors, and at this level the garden will be designed on the side of the large double patio door as well as behind the house, with steep slopes created just before the property boundary.

On the front door side, soil will also be filled up to front door level.

Toward the "front" (the side with the single patio door), the street level will be reached by terrace-like steps with 2-3 slope terraces supported by walls/granite.

Our concern now is: if we fill soil all around the house at door level on the side with the double patio door, at the back, and on the front door side, our garden height will be so high that, compared to the neighbors, our house will stand out significantly due to the very elevated ground level.

We are now considering ways to soften this.

One idea is to fill soil to door level only at the terrace wrapping the corner and directly at the front door, and to fill soil, for example, 50cm (20 inches) below door level everywhere else.

This way, the garden level would not be so dramatically higher than the neighbors’.

The problem with this is that we would partially expose the "basement" and areas without exterior plaster would become visible. We would likely need to hire a plasterer on our own to plaster additional areas and paint them with gray base paint. Time is tight because the soil will be delivered for filling within the next days/weeks. How long would such plastering take and what would it approximately cost?

Question to the forum: What do you think about this? Do you have other solutions? Or are our concerns unfounded?

Thank you very much in advance for any advice.
M
Machu Picchu
16 Oct 2022 19:44
K a t j a schrieb:

What does he actually say about it? Have you already brought up the problem?
No. I have been aware of the problem to this extent only since this thread was opened, which was yesterday.
K a t j a16 Oct 2022 19:46
SaniererNRW123 schrieb:

The architect did that, as far as I understand the original poster’s statements. They discussed the drainage together and agreed that the house should be elevated.

The complaint is not about the drainage, but about the access to the terrace.
K a t j a16 Oct 2022 19:56
Machu Picchu schrieb:

No. I have been aware of the problem with these measurements since this thread started yesterday.

In this case, it helps to take a few days to carefully consider all aspects and gather arguments before approaching the person. You should also have a preferred solution in mind and sleep on it twice to stay objective. It would also be helpful to meet directly on the construction site. These terrace doors up high create such an embarrassing impression—if he stands in front of them, he will probably back down. Moreover, he will likely realize that such a photo would not look good on his reference page. 😉
S
SaniererNRW123
16 Oct 2022 19:56
K a t j a schrieb:

The issue is not the drainage, but the access to the terrace.
But plans were made for this as well, which the original poster approved. At least, that’s what I saw at the beginning of the thread. Of course, it’s easy to criticize now, but a plan was developed together that led to the current outcome. From the start, during the planning phase – and this was quite obvious – there should have been discussions about the site grading, and it should not have been accepted or agreed to without question.
K a t j a16 Oct 2022 20:08
SaniererNRW123 schrieb:

At the start, during the planning phase—which was really quite obvious—there should have been discussions about the terrain modeling. It should not have been simply accepted or approved without question.

As mentioned, it’s certainly difficult to make claims here because everything was already approved. Still, the question remains whether the elevation levels can be considered a design flaw. In any case, this is highly embarrassing for an experienced architect. Presumably, the potential damage to reputation would be the strongest bargaining chip. Unless he plans to retire soon, this should matter to him considering the expected market conditions.
11ant16 Oct 2022 20:27
K a t j a schrieb:

I don’t find the matter that clear. For a new build, a licensed professional with design authorization must be involved to represent the design. The service provided, for example, by an architect is, in my opinion, a consulting service for which they are also liable. [...]
If the client invests in a building they actually do not want due to incorrect advice, the architect is liable for damages.
I agree with you, but first it must be clarified whether an architect contract existed. The general contractor (GC), often a master mason, usually holds the planning authorization themselves; no basis was incorrectly determined here, and a design phase 1 was probably not even part of the commissioned services. Furthermore, the original poster (OP) is somewhat simultaneously client and co-contractor of the overall project through their own construction services. This case scenario could probably keep law students entertained for an entire semester.
Machu Picchu schrieb:

Actually, I have no desire to respond to your sarcastic, condescending comment. Apparently, you find satisfaction in criticizing our case and venting, rather than contributing constructively.
The disservice your GC did you by raising the building to avoid the lifting station was sarcastic. I already said I like to contribute constructively as much as the respective questioners allow me to. But I can’t perform miracles. Incidentally, I interpret your comment as confirmation of my version of the summary for the readers following along.
SaniererNRW123 schrieb:

but a plan was set up together that led to the current result. At the start, during planning — which was really obvious — the terrain modeling should have been discussed
With a construction contract involving client-provided services, the GC essentially enters a collaborative planning process with the client, who is usually a non-expert. I would consider it excessive to expect the GC to refuse to cooperate for this reason. Rather, I see the GC acting in good faith regarding the contractual partner’s competence, from whom they do not need to demand proof that they have fully compensated for their personal lack of expertise through advice. The GC may rely on the fact that an adult knows what they are doing. They do not have to obtain a signed statement confirming that the client is aware of the objective uneconomical nature of their share of the overall project — from my point of view, the GC is under no obligation to critically evaluate the client’s concept (how the client intends to perform their own work).

No matter how you look at it: the GC bears no responsibility for the OP’s foolishness, not even in this special case, where any silent reader in their second year of study can only make an Edvard Munch face frozen in shock.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/