ᐅ Single-story house with a hip roof – is converting the attic worthwhile?
Created on: 22 Apr 2017 00:05
J
jawknee
Hello everyone,
I am currently looking for a plot of land and plan to build a small single-family house of about 120 sqm (1,292 sq ft), without a basement. I am thinking of a classic house with a pitched roof, including a utility room, kitchen, guest toilet, and living/dining area on the ground floor, and bedrooms, bathroom, and guest room/office upstairs.
Since I want to discuss specific details with builders or architects only once I have a plot as a basis, I cannot provide more detailed information at this stage. I hope this is sufficient for now.
I have now found a suitable plot (about 700 sqm (7,535 sq ft)), which will be developed next year, and according to the zoning plan, everything seemed fine. However, after asking the real estate agent for more information, it turned out there was a change to the development plan.
Previously, the following was allowed:
Ground floor + upper floor, pitched roof, 35–45 degrees, knee wall 80 cm (31 inches)
Now, only the following is permitted:
Ground floor + upper floor, hipped roof, 20–35 degrees, knee wall 80 cm (31 inches)
The floor area ratio (0.8) and site coverage ratio (0.4) have not changed.
According to the description and the agent’s statement, this would be a classic bungalow. Although I don’t completely rule it out, I am not a 100% fan of bungalows because, based on my preferences, I would like to have the bedroom and bathroom upstairs, and a bungalow also tends to use more of the plot area.
However, it seems that there are bungalows with usable attic space. My question is whether it is practical to manage about 120 sqm (1,292 sq ft) with a knee wall of 80 cm (31 inches) to fit a bathroom and bedroom in the roof space... and you would also need to accommodate a staircase. From a gut feeling, I find it hard to imagine, but maybe one of the experts here can share their assessment. It would also be interesting to know if it makes economic sense at all.
Thank you very much in advance.
I am currently looking for a plot of land and plan to build a small single-family house of about 120 sqm (1,292 sq ft), without a basement. I am thinking of a classic house with a pitched roof, including a utility room, kitchen, guest toilet, and living/dining area on the ground floor, and bedrooms, bathroom, and guest room/office upstairs.
Since I want to discuss specific details with builders or architects only once I have a plot as a basis, I cannot provide more detailed information at this stage. I hope this is sufficient for now.
I have now found a suitable plot (about 700 sqm (7,535 sq ft)), which will be developed next year, and according to the zoning plan, everything seemed fine. However, after asking the real estate agent for more information, it turned out there was a change to the development plan.
Previously, the following was allowed:
Ground floor + upper floor, pitched roof, 35–45 degrees, knee wall 80 cm (31 inches)
Now, only the following is permitted:
Ground floor + upper floor, hipped roof, 20–35 degrees, knee wall 80 cm (31 inches)
The floor area ratio (0.8) and site coverage ratio (0.4) have not changed.
According to the description and the agent’s statement, this would be a classic bungalow. Although I don’t completely rule it out, I am not a 100% fan of bungalows because, based on my preferences, I would like to have the bedroom and bathroom upstairs, and a bungalow also tends to use more of the plot area.
However, it seems that there are bungalows with usable attic space. My question is whether it is practical to manage about 120 sqm (1,292 sq ft) with a knee wall of 80 cm (31 inches) to fit a bathroom and bedroom in the roof space... and you would also need to accommodate a staircase. From a gut feeling, I find it hard to imagine, but maybe one of the experts here can share their assessment. It would also be interesting to know if it makes economic sense at all.
Thank you very much in advance.
11ant schrieb:
Before some city council meetings, they should probably do drug tests I thought the same while reading. I’ve rarely heard anything this ridiculous.
Nordlys schrieb:
That's just how they know it in the council. Nicely organized by political groups.Yeah, parcel 37 is reserved only for the Tuscany group. This land consolidation is well-intentioned, but the residential zones mixed like a "promenade blend" or "Colorado" with licorice and gummy bears all together is quite unusual. However, you can also overstep property rights with such measures; in my opinion, a development plan like this is open to challenge. What’s next – only striped cats on one side of the street, and only spotted ones on the other?
Garden gnomes always wear hats. It shouldn’t really matter whether they have a middle or side part underneath.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
The truth, or the best approach, lies somewhere in the middle. In a neighboring town, the local council took a very liberal stance, allowing, in the zoning plan, a floor space index (FSI) of 0.3, duplex houses, bungalows, one-and-a-half-story houses, two-story town villas, and holiday apartments. The result is a density that is too high for a town of about 1,000 residents. Many lots now overshadow each other, buildings are very close together, and the town villas only create burdens for the neighborhood.
In our area, town villas and holiday apartments are excluded. Duplex houses are only allowed on some plots larger than 600 sqm (6,458 sq ft), with an FSI of 0.25. Only bungalows and one-and-a-half-story houses are permitted. Knee walls are forbidden. This certainly restricts development more but ensures that everyone can enjoy some sunlight in their garden. I consider the ban on holiday apartments very important. Short-term rentals to tourists damage neighborhood life, increase traffic, and with large holiday homes, you often get group bookings — for example, a bowling club calling themselves “The Six Heavy Drinkers” might party for a week. I don’t want that in a residential area. Tourists belong in hotels, not in residential neighborhoods.
But for the original poster (OP), things are as they are. And he can solve his problem himself. Karsten
In our area, town villas and holiday apartments are excluded. Duplex houses are only allowed on some plots larger than 600 sqm (6,458 sq ft), with an FSI of 0.25. Only bungalows and one-and-a-half-story houses are permitted. Knee walls are forbidden. This certainly restricts development more but ensures that everyone can enjoy some sunlight in their garden. I consider the ban on holiday apartments very important. Short-term rentals to tourists damage neighborhood life, increase traffic, and with large holiday homes, you often get group bookings — for example, a bowling club calling themselves “The Six Heavy Drinkers” might party for a week. I don’t want that in a residential area. Tourists belong in hotels, not in residential neighborhoods.
But for the original poster (OP), things are as they are. And he can solve his problem himself. Karsten
Nordlys schrieb:
That’s how it is in the council. Neatly divided by political groups. One area for the Conservatives, one for the Labour party, one for the Greens, maybe another for the Liberals. Life is supposed to be like that too. Citizens are expected to sort themselves accordingly. KarstenI had to smile for a moment. On my realtor’s sales plan, the “groups” are marked in red, yellow, and blue.
@Nordlys
Thanks, I will definitely take a closer look!
I’m definitely glad that it’s not as hopeless as I initially thought, as long as the local council doesn’t have any other surprises lined up...
Nordlys schrieb:
Kniestock prohibited.Another nonsense regulation from zoning plans. The eaves height requirement limits the building mass more than enough. How far below the eaves the ceiling of a storey is inside the building is absolutely irrelevant to observers (and neighbors).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Ok. The red ones are the Tuscany-style villas, the social democrats. The yellow ones are the bungalows, the tax reducers. The blue ones are the garden shed houses, the AFD Save the West. Black and green build better elsewhere; their building plots are either next to a nature reserve or beside the Daimler car dealership. Karsten