Hello!
We have owned a plot of land for some time now but haven’t been able to get a good house plan together. It’s starting to drive us a bit crazy.
The plot has a slight west-facing slope and a minimal north-facing slope, which together total about 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) diagonally. The driveway will be accessed from the south—ideally the southeast—but unfortunately, that is the highest point, which complicates things.
We want to build with a general contractor (GC), so the architect they work with is doing the planning. The first architect tried to push a standard plan on us. That would have been fine if it matched our ideas and was more affordable, but it didn’t. Also, the GC wasn’t very reliable.
The second GC has been great so far, and the chemistry with his partner architect was good right away. The first architect just wanted a long driveway with the house and garage next to each other at the north end. The second architect immediately proposed what we envisioned: a shorter driveway and a garage set apart to the southeast in front of the house with a covered walkway to the entrance. I mentioned that, given the terrain heights, it might be challenging, but he said that would be his responsibility.
Since then, things have changed quite a bit after we saw their official proposals. Three out of four versions had a driveway in front of the garage with slopes of up to 20%, and then steps from the garage to the house. The floor plans didn’t impress us either; some room sizes were about 20% smaller than what we had already planned as tight. They told us not to fuss over a few square meters. Then, in the last meeting, the bombshell: they now say the planned version is not realistically feasible on this plot. The best solution would be to put the garage next to the house, push everything as far north as possible, resulting in a long driveway (25 meters / 82 feet)! So, basically, no progress from their side. We’re quite frustrated. Why did they create three alternative plans if the agreed version wasn’t really workable? How many hours have they spent on this already?
Besides the fact that we still don’t have a final plan and building costs keep rising, we’re wondering whether to continue working with this architect. It feels like there’s a lack of creativity. Or are we expecting too much?
We’re unsure what to do now. We don’t want to switch again if possible. Another question is what costs have already been incurred and how to handle that.
We are cautious and don’t want to provoke a confrontation, especially since things are fine on a personal level. But professionally and creatively, we’re not convinced, and we wonder if this will work out at all.
What do you think? I would appreciate your advice. Many thanks in advance.
We have owned a plot of land for some time now but haven’t been able to get a good house plan together. It’s starting to drive us a bit crazy.
The plot has a slight west-facing slope and a minimal north-facing slope, which together total about 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) diagonally. The driveway will be accessed from the south—ideally the southeast—but unfortunately, that is the highest point, which complicates things.
We want to build with a general contractor (GC), so the architect they work with is doing the planning. The first architect tried to push a standard plan on us. That would have been fine if it matched our ideas and was more affordable, but it didn’t. Also, the GC wasn’t very reliable.
The second GC has been great so far, and the chemistry with his partner architect was good right away. The first architect just wanted a long driveway with the house and garage next to each other at the north end. The second architect immediately proposed what we envisioned: a shorter driveway and a garage set apart to the southeast in front of the house with a covered walkway to the entrance. I mentioned that, given the terrain heights, it might be challenging, but he said that would be his responsibility.
Since then, things have changed quite a bit after we saw their official proposals. Three out of four versions had a driveway in front of the garage with slopes of up to 20%, and then steps from the garage to the house. The floor plans didn’t impress us either; some room sizes were about 20% smaller than what we had already planned as tight. They told us not to fuss over a few square meters. Then, in the last meeting, the bombshell: they now say the planned version is not realistically feasible on this plot. The best solution would be to put the garage next to the house, push everything as far north as possible, resulting in a long driveway (25 meters / 82 feet)! So, basically, no progress from their side. We’re quite frustrated. Why did they create three alternative plans if the agreed version wasn’t really workable? How many hours have they spent on this already?
Besides the fact that we still don’t have a final plan and building costs keep rising, we’re wondering whether to continue working with this architect. It feels like there’s a lack of creativity. Or are we expecting too much?
We’re unsure what to do now. We don’t want to switch again if possible. Another question is what costs have already been incurred and how to handle that.
We are cautious and don’t want to provoke a confrontation, especially since things are fine on a personal level. But professionally and creatively, we’re not convinced, and we wonder if this will work out at all.
What do you think? I would appreciate your advice. Many thanks in advance.
toxicmolotow schrieb:
Can you explain your concerns? I know some tenants I would rather have as neighbors than some owners. Tenants are less likely to have the mindset of "this is my land, so I can do whatever I want." I agree with you to some extent, but I would still see a difference regarding the view onto one’s own property.
For example, in our newly developed neighborhood, only single-family houses (SFHs) are built, and the development plan was created accordingly, but the planner forgot to specify the maximum number of dwelling units. This gap was exploited by an "investor" to place a multi-family building on a plot. Now, between SFHs, there is a multi-family building occupying the entire building boundaries on one lot. Of course, this is permitted and acceptable.
However, the perception is quite different when you initially expected only one family to live there, using only a portion of the developable area (like on the other plots), which results in certain spacing. A single-family house, for example, will probably be oriented to the south to preserve as much garden space as possible – so distances tend to be larger. The multi-family building, on the other hand, is constructed just enough to comply with setback requirements. The building is noticeably closer to the neighboring lot, and the four balconies face south, offering unobstructed views onto the adjacent property, which probably wouldn’t have been the case with a single-family home. With potentially four families sitting on the terraces or balconies, the likelihood increases that someone will be present to look over the fence, if they want to. Although this may hardly matter in everyday life, it can affect how people feel about it. Additionally, each apartment requires two parking spaces, so the traffic volume in the area could increase fourfold, which can also make a difference for neighbors.
As I said, everything is lawful and acceptable, no criticism of the multi-family building developer. Still, it’s understandable to have concerns in this regard and to respond to them architecturally if you know about it in advance and are in a fortunate situation. It is unfortunate when around 25 SFHs are already built and then suddenly such an eyesore appears. I can understand some resentment, though we are affected the least because the building is at the northwest corner of our property – so behind us.
I didn’t want to start a big discussion about tenants, etc. Everyone can see it differently, and people probably have different experiences.
Although only 2 dwelling units per lot are allowed, it still means having 2 neighbors instead of 1. Also, the person owns both lots above us, so the situation doubles once again.
Yes, we are number 6, that’s correct. I made a typo in the previous post; I actually meant number 5.
Although only 2 dwelling units per lot are allowed, it still means having 2 neighbors instead of 1. Also, the person owns both lots above us, so the situation doubles once again.
Yes, we are number 6, that’s correct. I made a typo in the previous post; I actually meant number 5.
Similar topics