Hello Forum,
I have a question regarding the following situation. I ordered a city villa with a 30° (30-degree) roof pitch (hip roof) without a converted attic. Due to a drawing error, the roof pitch is now 25° (25-degree). All documents and structural calculations are based on 30°. Do you have any ideas on how to increase the usable volume? Would it be acceptable to compare this to a fully converted attic? I am skeptical about that, as I have already lost a lot of space due to the reduced pitch.
I have a question regarding the following situation. I ordered a city villa with a 30° (30-degree) roof pitch (hip roof) without a converted attic. Due to a drawing error, the roof pitch is now 25° (25-degree). All documents and structural calculations are based on 30°. Do you have any ideas on how to increase the usable volume? Would it be acceptable to compare this to a fully converted attic? I am skeptical about that, as I have already lost a lot of space due to the reduced pitch.
mondbau schrieb:
The drawing error was caused by the drafting office. They wrote 30° roof pitch but drew 25°. The structural calculation, the building permit / planning permission, the contract—all specify 30°. I don’t know how much an attic conversion generally costs, but it usually includes mineral wool insulation and vapor barrier, counter battens, and tongue and groove boarding. This issue is quite frustrating to me. Is it reasonable to fix it? Erect scaffolding, remove all roof tiles, take down solar collectors, replace rafters, and then reroof. From the elevations, you can clearly see with the naked eye that the roof pitches are different. Why didn’t you object to that? The architect bears some responsibility.
You are only losing usable storage space.
Your requested change is disproportionate.
As @11ant already pointed out, we are talking about roughly 19 m³ (670 ft³) of converted space * 400 Euro = 7,600 Euro.
I would deduct this amount from the total construction cost (roof cost).
H
hampshire2 Mar 2021 11:39icandoit schrieb:
You are only losing usable storage space.
Your requested change is disproportionate.I'm really not trying to argue, but the lack of storage space can have a significant impact on the use of the house depending on the design, hobbies, and amount of items to be stored. The word "only" is quite relative here. As an alternative, the original poster could consider having a luxury garden shed, which might already be planned anyway, built as compensation.
hampshire schrieb:
As an alternative, the original poster could also have a possibly already planned luxury garden shed built as compensation.Or like that, yes. I see my compensation suggestion as an absolute win-win: proportionate because it is roughly cost-neutral and only a symbolic minor penalty for the general contractor, and the original poster exchanges inconveniently accessible storage space on a one-to-one basis for the same "amount" of conveniently accessible space. Their contribution to the peace process is 9 sqm (97 sq ft) of floor area ratio in the building setback, where it does no harm. The feeling of satisfaction from a financial compensation would quickly fade, while the frustration over the lost cubic meters of storage space in the attic would last longer. I see a garden shed as an appropriate alternative to my proposal with the storage room.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
The theoretical cubic meters of enclosed space were never fully usable.
2 m (6.6 feet) line 25 degrees 4 m² (43 sq ft), 30 degrees 10 m² (108 sq ft) = -6 m² (-65 sq ft)
1 m (3.3 feet) line 25 degrees 37 m² (398 sq ft), 30 degrees 42 m² (452 sq ft) = -5 m² (-54 sq ft) * 0.5 = -2.5 m² (-27 sq ft)
8.5 m² (91 sq ft) * 1200 Euro / m² = 10,200 Euro
2 m (6.6 feet) line 25 degrees 4 m² (43 sq ft), 30 degrees 10 m² (108 sq ft) = -6 m² (-65 sq ft)
1 m (3.3 feet) line 25 degrees 37 m² (398 sq ft), 30 degrees 42 m² (452 sq ft) = -5 m² (-54 sq ft) * 0.5 = -2.5 m² (-27 sq ft)
8.5 m² (91 sq ft) * 1200 Euro / m² = 10,200 Euro
Similar topics