ᐅ Additional Costs for Residential Units

Tassimat schrieb:

However, that is not allowed for an emergency escape route. The fire department cannot use it to place a ladder, nor can the resident get outside through such a high window. Just plan a dormer facing forward—you will need one.

Yes, thanks! I also noticed that when I reread the regulations earlier. As a last resort, I had thought about a dormer/small roof terrace but needed to consider it further. I think I would only do that if I can actually get approval for the three residential units (and if nothing else conflicts with it anyway, such as building codes, parking spaces, etc.). If that is not possible, then the additional emergency escape route wouldn’t be required (right?).
I was concerned that a dormer/terrace up there would significantly complicate the insulation, so for me, that would only be a last-resort solution.

Felix85 schrieb:

I can’t start the roof on top of the walls and then somehow build about a meter (3 feet) in front of it. But probably it works that way and I just don’t get it.

Actually, that’s exactly how it is. Maybe you should consider consulting a professional in person who can answer your questions directly at the drawing board.

Felix85 schrieb:

To clarify again: Was my rough estimate of the attic floor area accurate for this type of roof design?

So, if you need to deduct about 2 meters (6.5 feet) on each side to reach a height of 2 meters (6.5 feet) in order to make the space usable, you’re left with an area of 6 by 6 meters (20 by 20 feet). From that, subtract the stairwell, walls, and shafts, which brings you down to around 30 square meters (320 square feet). I would indeed calculate conservatively like this, since you also lose considerable space due to the floor, wall, and roof construction.

Tassimat schrieb:

So if I have to deduct about 2 meters (6.5 feet) on each side to reach a height of 2 meters (6.5 feet) in order to use the space effectively, then 6 by 6 meters (20 by 20 feet) remain.

In my sketch, it’s 3 meters (10 feet) on each side to reach 2 meters (6.5 feet) height. (Without a set square, mind you, so roughly estimated, WITHOUT a knee wall in the roof)
A shower requires 2.50 meters (8 feet)...

Well, now I’m being a bit harsh: the centrally located staircase creates quite a bit of hallway space on the other floors. So: build even bigger and then get more usable area upstairs as well 😉

ypg schrieb:

You seem to be the third person this week who is determined to plan a granny flat at all costs, just to at least theoretically get a feel for building a house. We’re not stupid here, even if some like to pretend otherwise. Arguments come up… hehe, hopefully 11ant has documented some of it.

ypg schrieb:

I’m replying because I can’t quite gauge your intention.

Now, let’s be honest. I understand that none of you want to support subsidy fraud. That’s fine. But honestly, what does it achieve? The tone of some comments (especially in other threads I’ve skimmed through, but I also sensed it here) tends to drive people away rather than create a welcoming, helpful, and friendly atmosphere. When in doubt, always assume the benefit of the doubt for the accused, right? Every person who gets properly advised here is one less making costly mistakes. And if that means one more person gets advice who tries to game the government’s development loan programs, so be it. You don’t need to be the subsidy police. Especially since these programs, properly understood, only subsidize the potential living space (to my understanding so far). So if someone wants to build a house with five dwelling units and meets all the requirements, then that’s how it is. I wouldn’t want to live in such a (probably fully) developed property myself, but if it’s ever sold, at least it is usable according to the rules.

Directly accusing someone (anyone) of intending subsidy fraud and then refusing to talk reasonably with them isn’t a viable solution either.
Personally, I suspect that more and more “unusual cases” will appear in the future who want to build houses with multiple dwellings: housing is becoming scarcer, and the dream of a single-family house is less likely. I’ve lived many years in apartments and can easily imagine not having 150+ square meters (approximately 1600+ square feet) just for three people in the future, but rather limiting myself and living in multiple units under one roof. I used to be a tenant, and soon perhaps a landlord. Yet I try to keep my space requirements roughly the same as before. My family situation encourages shared living, but that might not suit everyone. You can also do it with friends or even strangers. Regardless of who, I’d argue the trend is moving towards multi-family houses or “optimized housing use.” For most, this is dictated by land prices and rising construction costs. Looking at what cities mostly plan (at least where I am), it’s primarily apartments and townhouses — fewer detached single-family homes.
Basically, when it comes to creating living space, you can be grateful for anyone willing to live with others in their own home instead of alone.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to live with strangers right now, but others might be less sensitive about that.
In summary, my advice is: be brave and help the questioners. You have expertise; they don’t. A lot is changing at the moment, housing with multiple units is becoming more common, and I don’t think everyone planning a granny flat is necessarily a dishonest subsidy fraudster. Maybe such plans (and questions) are simply the logical result of the circumstances regarding climate and the market that are emerging now.