ᐅ Implementation of our hipped roof on an urban villa with a cantilevered upper floor

This would be an alternative. It naturally costs extra... but then everywhere with 75cm (30 inches).

Our planner also suggested that to us, but we didn’t like it visually because it takes away the clean, straight lines of the roof.

Well, then the question is settled.

You’ll choose the option that looks less unattractive to you.

xDorix schrieb:
I have added the information to the main post.

From my perspective, this one is the main thread, as it’s the older version by about forty minutes compared to a more or less duplicate post. Maybe @admin or @webmaster should merge the two threads (j3p6f5 and j0t2b1).

xDorix schrieb:
We more or less planned the floor plan ourselves after looking at various houses and layouts. We took what we liked from different floor plans and planned our house, then gradually improved it together with our structural engineer.

“Various floor plans” – I couldn’t have put it better myself. I’m not quite sure where to place the alignment marks to overlay the floor plans here. Overall, the drawings are very confusing; at least the image in the post from 12:05 gives a bit of clarity. Otherwise, firstly, you see two floor plans for different stories of what appear to be very similar houses, which were apparently created separately, and secondly, there are inconsistencies: the roof is supposed to overhang on all sides (partly to an extent that affects spacing), but in the ground floor plan on the right side, no overhang is shown. The upper floor is set back all around in the sense that only the ground floor has a masonry veneer, while the upper floor, despite having external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS), still keeps a reduced wall thickness of 13.5 cm (5 inches). Any draftsperson in their first year would immediately think (or at least would have back in the day) to move the structural masonry layer on the upper floor about one meter further outward. But here, fantasy measurements dominate, as far as the eye can see (remember: fantasy measurements are the foundation for shoddy workmanship!).

But anyway, you probably don’t need to analyze the design in detail if it already massively exceeds the budget: the twin post mentions a 450k budget, but the reality will be around 600k. Also, a typical family doesn’t need more than 190+ sqm (2045+ sq ft), so there’s plenty of room to cut back. And with the new draft, forget aiming for symmetrical facades – that’s just cheap ersatz aesthetics for those with a poor sense of proportion. By the way, the ground floor also shows a staircase down to a basement, which is mentioned as a luxury feature (the site is not on a slope), so apparently it’s optional. In this design, I only see two successful aspects: the staircase shape and the size of the children’s rooms. I wouldn’t carry over anything else to the new planning approach.

Design YOUR house according to your needs (130 to 150 sqm – closer to 130 sqm (1400-1600 sq ft), since you’ll want some interesting features in the building form) instead of modifying (too large) FLOOR PLANS from OTHER people. Even a full architect’s design (both phases!) costs less than the oversized areas planned here.

Or consider reliable, proven designs, which make the most sense for typical families (especially with flat lots; if your site has a slope, just look for something a size smaller). What are the names of the models that you “borrowed” parts from to create the plan shown here, and which models does the general contractor offer in the catalog for the stated price?

---

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

xDorix schrieb:
This is the design we received. It shows the version with a 1.25m (4 feet) overhang on the left and right sides and the upper floor extended forward by 75cm (30 inches).

Why don’t you just choose one of the tens of thousands of catalog examples of such “captain’s gable” front door overhangs, instead of “reinventing the wheel”?
The only real difference is that front doors are typically located on a wide side, whereas in your case, you want it on the narrow side.
There are many designs without any overhang at all (which I actually prefer to those with an overhang). An overhang in front that is significantly larger than on the sides or rear always gives off a baseball cap vibe.
By the way, even 75cm (30 inches) is effective as a rain guard since it’s more than 50cm (20 inches).

---

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

We do not have a basement.
The upper floor is intended to be slightly recessed for aesthetic reasons.

11ant schrieb:
Why don’t you just use one of the thousands of catalog examples for such children’s bathroom captain’s gable front door cantilevers, instead of “reinventing the wheel”?
Their only difference is usually that the front doors are located on a wide side, whereas in your case they are on the narrow side.
There are many designs without an overhang as well (which I prefer over having one). A front overhang significantly larger than the side and rear one always gives a baseball cap look.
By the way, distances of 75 cm (30 inches) are already effective, since they are more than 50 cm (20 inches).

Do you have an example? That sounds good, but I don’t understand what you mean.