ᐅ Window Width and Position Grid

Hello everyone,

A few quick questions for clarification following a lively discussion with my partner:
- So far, the masons have proposed window grids based on a 12.5cm (5 inch) brick module: for example, widths of 101cm (40 inches), 113.5cm (45 inches), 126cm (50 inches), and so on.
- For aesthetic reasons, the question now is whether choosing a 105cm (41 inch) width—resulting in excessive cutting of bricks—would significantly increase costs, reduce stability, or cause other issues.
- The same would apply if we want to position windows precisely at certain wall locations that don’t naturally align with the brick module.

Is this something to avoid or that becomes excessively expensive, or have you found it to be no issue in your projects?

I will send a request to the preferred masonry team next week. They tend to prefer keeping things simple, but usually charge based on square meters (square feet) of wall area.

Thanks and best regards

Windows are usually custom-made based on precise measurements.

patalmtt schrieb:

-The same applies if we want the windows positioned as precisely as possible at certain points on the wall that don’t happen to align with the grid.

Well, tell me what you mean by a “precise” window position! What would that look like and why? Don’t get me wrong, I can think of examples too, but if I have a cabinet depth of 38.5cm (15 inches) at the planned window, I wouldn’t design the wall to exactly 38.5cm (15 inches), but at least 40cm (16 inches)… and when the architect or draftsman finalizes everything, it could just as well be 45cm (18 inches) or 50cm (20 inches). When designing a house, you don’t consider individual wall lengths alone; you design a house based on functionality, cost efficiency, and visual proportions.

patalmtt schrieb:

choosing a 105mm (4 inch) width leads to significantly higher costs/instability or similar due to excessive cutting of bricks.

The client does not need to bother about such trivialities at all. If anything, they should simply explain what they intend, want, or are thinking. In my opinion, they should refrain from commenting on technical implementation. And yes, cutting bricks is not attractive, and the walls end up looking patchy. There are plenty of photos in professional construction forums showing these narrow broken brick pieces where such issues are criticized.

patalmtt schrieb:

Is this something to avoid/does it get excessively expensive, or is it not an issue in your projects?

Yes, it should be avoided if there are alternative options. However, having such a cut piece in a wall is by no means a serious problem.

patalmtt schrieb:

-For aesthetic reasons, the question now arises whether choosing a 105 cm (41 inches) width due to excessive cutting of bricks results in significantly higher costs, instability, or similar issues. [...] Is this something to avoid/does it become excessively expensive, or is it no issue in your projects?

Since follow-up communication is probably not very important to you anyway, it was likely no disadvantage that you asked this question during my absence. Since this is a FAQ and about ten silent readers follow each thread, I will still address it:
2. I can hardly imagine a noticeable visual difference between windows for rough openings of 101 cm (40 inches) or 105 cm (41 inches); at best, this becomes apparent by direct comparison. Both sizes are equally feasible when windows are custom-made;
1. see the search term "Pfuschertaschen" (poor craftsmanship pockets)—for me, this is always an issue, as it is best to avoid deviations from the planned brick module rhythm as completely as possible.

ypg schrieb:

And yes, cutting bricks is not aesthetically pleasing, and the walls look patchy as well. There are plenty of photos of these narrow, broken brick pieces in technical building forums where such practices are criticized. [ / ]
Yes, it should be avoided when other options exist. Such a piece in a wall is by no means a critical problem.

Deviations from the brick module rhythm result in corresponding complications with the overlapping joints in every course of bricks. How much this affects stability (risk of cracking) depends on the degree of deviation. However, every "Pfuschertasche" is a flaw in the thermal homogeneity of the masonry. If it were only a cosmetic defect covered by plaster, I would not be concerned about it.

patalmtt schrieb:

Quick clarifying questions due to a lively discussion with my partner:
-The masons have so far proposed window spacings based on a 12.5 cm (5 inches) brick module, e.g., 101 cm (40 inches) wide, 113.5 cm (44.7 inches), 126 cm (50 inches), etc. [...]
-The same applies if we want to place windows as precisely as possible at specific wall positions that don’t coincide with the module grid.

The masons generally don’t care much about the openings themselves. What matters are the wall segments’ lengths before, after, and between the openings (and for windows with sills, also the widths of the openings and their deviation from the module rhythm—floor-to-ceiling windows are practically irrelevant here). In short: the lengths of wall sections matter far more than the exact window sizes. From a façade design perspective, deviations of about 4 cm (1.6 inches) from the ideal module grid are practically invisible.

But as I said: what annoys me personally more—and what your question today has triggered—is how much your reluctance to engage in follow-up communication dampens the enthusiasm of other participants.

---

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

By now, the walls are up, and I believe the masons managed well... It ended up being 106cm (42 inches) wide, just as requested. The masons’ fixed price didn’t change either. Of course, they probably added a bit somewhere, but overall it’s acceptable. After all, we’re not building a turnkey home.