ᐅ Living area approximately 8 m² smaller in the permit drawings compared to the design (general contractor)
Created on: 16 Apr 2025 11:23
I
ITSM2025
Hi everyone,
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
W
wiltshire17 Apr 2025 10:38ITSM2025 schrieb:
Classic December 2024 (primarily before drawings) This statement might indicate that contracts can differ from promotional images – which is quite normal if you want a detail to be different from the brochure. The question of which medium exactly the promotional images appeared in, and at what time and for what purpose, remains unanswered in this thread.
ITSM2025 schrieb:
I can hardly imagine it without major discussions. If it’s already starting like this, people probably won’t avoid disputes and will push it to the limit. I share your view. You can avoid major disputes and prevent new ones from arising by being clear about what you really want and expressing it clearly. The extra 6.5cm (2.6 inches) apparently concerns more of a personal negotiation success as compensation for a somewhat insignificant price per square meter, rather than the essential or fundamental issue. Your building partner currently has no chance of satisfying you, even assuming they are a very fair partner.
You yourself contribute to part of the stress in this situation. This is the part over which you have 100% control. I can only recommend taking the time to collect yourself, clarify and prioritize your own goals, and seize the opportunities this presents. Problems during construction – and there always are – can be resolved not only faster but much better on such a basis. More importantly: overcoming an initial crisis – no matter who caused it – strengthens the foundation for cooperation. View the early irritation as an opportunity. If you have a professional building partner – and this seems to be the case – you will achieve a lot, experience a good construction period, receive proper quality, deal with few disputes over remedies (which always exist), and move in happily without any feeling of resentment. If this prospect is more important to you than, for example, the price per square meter, my recommendation might be helpful.
I see it the same way as "MachsSelbst" on page 8. I lose about 8 square meters (86 square feet) of gross space. If you want to put it that way, that’s roughly equivalent to two guest toilets. Based on the sketches, the fixed price was surely calculated by the general contractor (GC). After all, I could simply say that I no longer want the KfW 40 standard. Then the GC would have to install the originally calculated amount of materials, including labor. Expanding the house by 6.5 cm (2.6 inches) in all directions should, in proportion to my current overpayment in the planned state, result in lower costs.
And honestly, we have several people here in the forum, like 11ant, who advise their clients specifically to avoid getting into trouble with the construction or the GC. I really can’t imagine that the client or builder would just be told to accept this. Or would that be the case? And again, the GC has known from day one how I wanted to build. The KfW 40 standard didn’t just come out of nowhere “yesterday.” It was never meant as a joke or “just an idea.” You simply can’t present a potential customer with a floor plan including area according to their wishes and then, after signing, present a smaller interior house for the same price.
Regarding the masonry, nothing else will be used in my house. Thanks for the tips @11ant and others, but I want to stick with the masonry. And yes, the GC knew this beforehand, including insulation and facing brick (cladding). I don’t see how I could have explained any more precisely what I want. I can’t exactly build a sample wall on our plot for the GC to understand it better as a professional.
And honestly, we have several people here in the forum, like 11ant, who advise their clients specifically to avoid getting into trouble with the construction or the GC. I really can’t imagine that the client or builder would just be told to accept this. Or would that be the case? And again, the GC has known from day one how I wanted to build. The KfW 40 standard didn’t just come out of nowhere “yesterday.” It was never meant as a joke or “just an idea.” You simply can’t present a potential customer with a floor plan including area according to their wishes and then, after signing, present a smaller interior house for the same price.
Regarding the masonry, nothing else will be used in my house. Thanks for the tips @11ant and others, but I want to stick with the masonry. And yes, the GC knew this beforehand, including insulation and facing brick (cladding). I don’t see how I could have explained any more precisely what I want. I can’t exactly build a sample wall on our plot for the GC to understand it better as a professional.
M
MachsSelbst17 Apr 2025 11:31wiltshire schrieb:
Your building partner currently has no chance to satisfy you, even if we assume he is a very fair partner. What? That’s nonsense.
He’s supposed to enlarge the house using thicker walls on the outside, keep the original square meter area, and everyone should be happy?
Where’s the problem? That he needs to have the roof recalculated?
This cannot seriously be the conclusion. It is absolutely uncommon in detached single-family house new builds to realize thicker walls at the expense of the square meter area.
It seems to me that you might also want to get a bit upset. But it is what it is, and it’s impossible to definitively determine who made more or fewer mistakes. Even in court, it's unpredictable. So... what do you want to do now?
If you have an alternative builder, then go with them, because with this mindset you will keep running into these kinds of issues. I’m not saying your frustration isn’t justified, but try to focus more on what happens from now on... or if nothing happens at all.
Don’t speculate too much; create clarity with the builder. Maybe he is a difficult person but still builds good houses. I once decided against working with a company whose owner behaved quite unpleasantly here in Saxony in my opinion; however, I know their house construction was actually very good.
If you really can’t put the frustration behind you, I strongly recommend changing your building partner, because you will have to deal with them for a while, and then live in what they built—no matter what. What good does it do if I or anyone else here shares your opinion?
Create clarity for yourself and then make your decision!
Then everything is fine, and a conversation will settle it; in that case, all the fuss here was pointless if it’s not a problem.
If you have an alternative builder, then go with them, because with this mindset you will keep running into these kinds of issues. I’m not saying your frustration isn’t justified, but try to focus more on what happens from now on... or if nothing happens at all.
Don’t speculate too much; create clarity with the builder. Maybe he is a difficult person but still builds good houses. I once decided against working with a company whose owner behaved quite unpleasantly here in Saxony in my opinion; however, I know their house construction was actually very good.
If you really can’t put the frustration behind you, I strongly recommend changing your building partner, because you will have to deal with them for a while, and then live in what they built—no matter what. What good does it do if I or anyone else here shares your opinion?
Create clarity for yourself and then make your decision!
MachsSelbst schrieb:
Where is the problem supposed to be? That the roof has to be recalculated (or have it recalculated)?
Then everything is fine, and a conversation will settle it; in that case, all the fuss here was pointless if it’s not a problem.
W
wiltshire17 Apr 2025 11:44ITSM2025 schrieb:
You can’t just show a potential customer a floor plan including area measurements based on their preferences, only to present a smaller interior after signing the contract, for the same price. You say you feel misled but don’t provide any evidence when asked—neither regarding the “colorful images” you cite as the basis of your decision, nor any specific clause in your contract that guarantees the living area according to your expectations. No one can help you in this situation except to sympathize, write “oh, that’s unfortunate,” and suggest demands that they are not obliged to honor and that are unlikely to be enforceable. I think it would be harmful to reinforce anyone’s false assumptions, and I do not want to cause anyone harm in this forum.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
Huh? That’s nonsense? You didn’t want to, or didn’t manage to, understand what I wrote. We both know that already.
M
MachsSelbst17 Apr 2025 11:46I’m speechless. Sure, if a wall is already standing and it’s 2cm (1 inch) too far to the left or right, or the window is 5cm (2 inches) off to the left, that’s forgivable and hard to fix without major effort.
But when the planning suddenly reduces the living area by 6% because they don’t want to recalculate the structural engineering?
I would look for a new building partner. This has nothing to do with fairness. They simply don’t want to put in the effort, and this will cause you more problems during the construction process.
But when the planning suddenly reduces the living area by 6% because they don’t want to recalculate the structural engineering?
I would look for a new building partner. This has nothing to do with fairness. They simply don’t want to put in the effort, and this will cause you more problems during the construction process.
Similar topics