ᐅ Floor plan of a standard house, eaves-facing on the short side

trose69 schrieb:

As I said, if this is considered 'double posting,' I am happy to close it.)

You do not have permission to close anything. You need to report your own post. If it gets closed, then you start over again.

trose69 schrieb:

I assumed that standard long-eaves floorplans are not necessarily suitable for gable-eaves – but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am looking at model homes to check whether this (supposedly) more affordable option is suitable for us alongside architect-designed plans.

You are forgetting the structural engineering. The house or roof needs load-bearing walls, which differs depending on eave or ridge orientation.
You can forget about model homes.
I also don’t understand your reasoning to choose a model home, which usually offers no flexibility and is really only suitable for a simple plot with the appropriate development plan.
A general contractor (GC) house is challenging, but definitely feasible. Moreover, GCs often offer bespoke design options.
From your previous thread, I am personally out, because your constant changes of the building plot didn’t make sense. Suddenly there was mention of a bungalow with a basement.
I have a feeling things will be confusing here as well because you start in the middle and now provide details bit by bit.
Also, doesn’t the development plan allow hipped roofs? (textual specification)
First of all: where is the reference point for the height?

ypg schrieb:

You don’t have permission to close anything. You need to report your post first. If necessary, it will be closed, then you have to start over again.

You’re forgetting the structural engineering. The house or roof needs load-bearing walls, which change depending on the eaves/ridge orientation.
You can forget about a standard house then.

Basically, that’s already the answer to my question.

ypg schrieb:

I don’t understand your idea of going for a standard house, which usually leaves no freedoms and is really only suitable for a very simple plot with corresponding zoning regulations.

See above: basically, as I said, my original question was: are there standardized/standard houses for such a plot/requirements.

ypg schrieb:

A general contractor (GC) house is difficult but definitely possible. Also, GCs often offer custom planning.

I know. I admit: I’m quite dissatisfied with the GC designs for the smaller plot (see other thread). That’s why our approach, as I said, for both plots is leaning more towards an architect. Certainly more so for this plot – I just wanted to explore/exclude options here.

ypg schrieb:

I’m personally out of the discussion from your previous thread because the constant changing of plots didn’t feel coherent. Suddenly you mentioned a bungalow with a basement.

No problem. The thread was still quite helpful for us.

ypg schrieb:

I have the feeling this might get confusing here as well because you’re starting in the middle and adding things little by little.

As I said: after starting the thread, it felt a bit redundant to me. Hence my suggestion to close it or let it fade away. Specifically, my original question was: does anyone know examples of 1.5-story houses with cross-eaves orientation available off the shelf?

ypg schrieb:

Besides, doesn’t the zoning plan also allow hip roofs? (textual specification)

Yes – however, I assumed (also here – I could be wrong) that it quickly results in a full second story.

ypg schrieb:

First of all: what reference point is used for the height?

The top edge of the finished ground floor slab:

trose69 schrieb:

Yes – however, I assumed (also here – I might be mistaken) that it quickly ends at two full stories.

That’s correct.

trose69 schrieb:

The top edge of the finished ground floor slab:

Reference point. Again: at what height is the reference point? You can’t just build 152.00 something high.
Maybe I’m missing something in the plans. But it’s not my job to decipher cluttered drawings.
So once again: how tall is the house allowed to be?

trose69 schrieb:

Standard / promotional houses

You’re mixing things up: standard houses are fully developed model homes with existing structural engineering. The design suits a wide and large target group and is versatile. If the plot has a poor orientation or other restrictions, the house can usually be modified without much effort. Other personal changes are also possible.
A promotional house is much more extreme. It is usually the low-budget house from the builder, which has been further stripped down. Hardly anything is adjustable, if anything at all.

trose69 schrieb:

I admit: I am quite dissatisfied with the general contractor’s plans for the smaller plot (see other thread).

You need to be more specific when you speak.
With what, with whom, and why are you dissatisfied? I actually expect a little explanation from you now, at least a five-line response, so we can make some progress here.

Here is the calculation work...
The highest point before the southern plot is at 147.80 meters (485.3 feet), the eaves height is allowed up to 152.00 meters (498.7 feet), which is 4.40 m (14.4 ft) higher, and the ridge height is allowed up to 158.5 meters (520.3 feet), resulting in a total house height of 10.7 m (35.1 ft), if I have calculated and checked correctly.

ypg schrieb:

Right.

Reference point. Again: at what height is the reference point? After all, you are not allowed to build up to 152.00 something.
Maybe I’m missing something in the plans. But it’s also not my job to solve hidden-object puzzles.
So again: what is the maximum building height allowed?

I understand. The details are relative to the standard height level, and the nearest measured point is at the middle of the adjacent street at 147.8 NHH. However, there is still about 30–50cm (12–20 inches) of slope up to the building envelope. So the ridge height is approximately 10m (33 feet). I am unsure whether or where this can be read more precisely from the plans.

ypg schrieb:

You’re confusing something: standard design houses are functional, pre-engineered houses with existing structural calculations. The design suits a wide and large target group and is versatile. If the plot has a poor orientation or other requirements, the house can usually be modified without much effort. Other personal changes are also possible.
A promotional house is much more extreme. It is usually the builder’s low-budget option, further stripped down. There is hardly anything modifiable there, if anything at all.

Yes, I just wanted to check whether one of the supposedly cheaper options – (i) a minimally modified standard house or (ii) an unmodified promotional house – would even be feasible. The reason: the larger western plots cost about 130,000 EUR more than the smaller eastern plot. Therefore, we would forgo a basement on the western plots, while the eastern plot is planned with a basement. But I think your assessment aligns with my research so far: promotional house probably no, and standard house only if the price advantage is not lost through the gable adjustment.

Since we want to install a lot of photovoltaics (and must do so for scoring and successful allocation of the plot), we have already considered discussing a gable rotation with the building authorities. A roof oriented south to south-east would certainly be better for photovoltaics than the current south-west to west roof (I know—there are two roof sides, so the argument is only moderately convincing). Also, there are enough precedents for gable-end houses in the adjacent street. However, I do not have high hopes for this.

ypg schrieb:

You also have to say something when you talk.
With what, with whom, and why are you dissatisfied? I actually expect a short essay from you, at least five lines, to make some progress here.

I didn’t want to open this can of worms here (yet), since we do not have the final plot assignment from the allocation process — which makes discussions difficult due to the large differences between plots with the same budget.

Specifically, we are currently at this point:

Currently against general contractors (GC) -> we do not feel well advised there so far (initially only regarding the eastern plot, see another thread):

- The consultations with the 4 GCs so far have been uncomfortably sales-driven and focused on closing deals in 2024. This is basically understandable due to bonuses — but we have always made it clear that a standard floor plan (for the small eastern plot, 2.5 stories, duplex style with basement) is sufficient for an initial cost overview. Constantly having to justify why we want more than a week to decide on the contract (plot allocation only confirmed at the beginning of December!) has been exhausting.

- One GC salesperson didn’t even have the correct gable orientation in mind, and forgot that we wanted to build with a basement on the small plot. The design was therefore quite useless.

- Another salesperson suddenly came up with a flat roof... I am obviously a beginner at reading a zoning plan (see above). However, I would have expected a bit more from production home salespeople.

- So far, none of the GC salespersons’ designs for the ‘detached half-duplex’ have convinced us.

Pro architect -> we feel personally better advised there — we currently assume we will start a concrete, commissioned needs assessment after getting the final plot.

- The advantage with an architect has mainly been the much more pleasant discussions, supported by examples, about our options, the connection to local contractors, repeated recommendations in our circle of acquaintances and colleagues, and knowledge of the building area.

- However, we have not yet discussed the western plot with the architect. The general differences regarding price certainty, liability, fee structures like HOAI are reasonably clear to us (and that it is possible to plan with an external architect and build with a GC).

As said: we are still running through the very different building options pre-contractually, waiting for the plot assignment, and plan to start more detailed planning then. More specific forum questions will certainly arise then.

kbt09 schrieb:

Here is the calculation...
The highest point before the southern plot is 147.80, the eaves height may go up to 152.00, so 4.40 m (14.4 ft), the ridge height may be up to 158.5, making a total house height of 10.7 m (35.1 ft), if I have calculated and checked correctly.

Thanks, Kerstin.
If I roughly estimate this correctly, a house length of 12 meters (39.4 ft) with a 32-degree roof slope would just reach the allowed height.
A length of about 11 meters (36.1 ft) would probably be safer for a rough drawing or calculation. This would still allow about 6 meters (19.7 ft) of livable space width with standing height in the attic.

trose69 schrieb:

talking to the building authority about rotating the gable.

Haha, good joke. You have a newly developed zoning plan in a new housing development. That’s what applies here.

trose69 schrieb:

The adjacent street has enough precedents for gable-end-facing houses.

Adjacent streets are not precedents but simply a different development area with different rules.

trose69 schrieb:

The larger west plots cost about 130,000 EUR more compared to the smaller east plot.

Which east plot? You are expecting a bit much from other users here if you suddenly bring up options not mentioned in the original thread.
One just has to weigh how important underground space is. A house width of 9.5 meters (31.2 ft) on a wider plot seems very attractive to me.

trose69 schrieb:

I didn’t want to open that can of worms here yet, since we don’t have the final plot from the allocation process.

I hope there won’t be a third thread!
You can keep using this thread even after a break.

trose69 schrieb:

the consultations with the 4 general contractors so far have been uncomfortably sales-oriented.

What did you expect? You don’t even have a plot yet. Any inquiry is usually received negatively, because you have expectations that nobody can or wants to fulfill.

trose69 schrieb:

- one of the general contractor salespeople didn’t even consider the correct gable orientation and forgot that in the case of the smaller plot we want to build with a basement. That design was therefore pretty useless.

Exactly. €3000/sqm (square meter) is unavoidable anyway. Everything else is interchangeable and isn’t really necessary to know.

trose69 schrieb:

So far, we haven’t been convinced by any general contractor’s design for the 'detached semi-detached house'.

trose69 schrieb:

Pro architect --> We feel personally better advised there.

… because they have completely different responsibilities than a salesperson.
I put it this way: right now, there is no need to pressure professionals or expect them to do meticulous preliminary work.
Personally, I still see it as the homeowner’s responsibility to engage with the plot and the house.
That means: sometimes get out of the car, take in the environment and space.
Get familiar with the plot layout. Later at home, sketch on graph paper, a top-down 2D view: what ground area is possible, then a 2D side view: what kind of rooms you get with the known dimensions.
If you clearly don’t fit with the known grids of standard houses (regardless of shape, they all have almost the same grid), and you really don’t want the staircase the way it is typically planned, then maybe an architect could be beneficial after review. In about 80% of cases (and here I see no reason otherwise) a local general contractor usually suffices. Most of them have an architect from the area working for them. Larger companies have employees: architects, licensed engineers, and salespeople. Then you become just another number. But that doesn’t have to be a disadvantage either.
So:
engage with your plot, sketch, ask questions here if needed. Then you will have a clearer picture.