ᐅ Current Building Practices and New Residential Developments Compliant with Energy Efficiency Regulations
Created on: 24 Mar 2018 14:36
F
Fuchur
New development areas and how they look nowadays due to energy saving regulations, etc.
It used to be a huge site in an old district of East Berlin (former military area and restricted zone).
In 2006, things still started off quite reasonably. In the end, there are now around 500 houses. What’s interesting is that each year the plots got smaller, but the houses built on them became larger.
This was the beginning in 2006, as mentioned, still quite moderate:
Now, around 2017 and after about four construction phases, this is what it looks like:
There was no real zoning plan there. Practically anything could be built that was available in the portfolio.
Combining and rearranging didn’t go perfectly smoothly but it’s alright...
Regards, Mycraft
It used to be a huge site in an old district of East Berlin (former military area and restricted zone).
In 2006, things still started off quite reasonably. In the end, there are now around 500 houses. What’s interesting is that each year the plots got smaller, but the houses built on them became larger.
This was the beginning in 2006, as mentioned, still quite moderate:
Now, around 2017 and after about four construction phases, this is what it looks like:
There was no real zoning plan there. Practically anything could be built that was available in the portfolio.
Fuchur schrieb:
OT: I would feel claustrophobic with these plots. The best ones are almost always in the shade...
Combining and rearranging didn’t go perfectly smoothly but it’s alright...
Regards, Mycraft
Müllerin schrieb:
Apart from that, I believe city planners should present a proper development plan – and that plan must then be followed. And if it only allows flat roofs and no pitched roofs, well, that’s unfortunate; no one is forced to build exactly where the regulations don’t suit them. If the plan is too restrictive, then it’s not a proper development plan. It crosses the line between unfortunate and disproportionate, among other things. If the plots are owned by the municipality, that can be viewed differently. But if they are privately owned, the owner becomes the party harmed when the municipality effectively lowers the value of the land through disproportionate restrictions. Lawsuits against the plan and further claims (such as compensation) are the consequences.
Traumfaenger schrieb:
What I find worse are allowed building mistakes like the pink Tuscan-style house with a heat pump between "antique" columns next to the front door (or alternatively the outdoor unit of an air conditioning system) Not or, but and
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
ruppsn schrieb:
A specific case from our building area: The local authority requires red roof tiles for shed roofs in the development plan, with a maximum roof pitch of 16 degrees. The homeowner approached the municipality requesting an exemption from this rule because he wanted to cover a 7-degree shallow-pitched roof with anthracite-colored tiles. The municipality said no, reason: they don’t like it, and anyone could request the same. The homeowner thought: forget you, I’ll go with anthracite... the roof surface is barely visible, so it could never affect the village character. Additionally, there are two buildings just two streets away with the same…
In summary: The homeowner did exactly what you would expect—he asked for an exemption early on. It was rejected arbitrarily, and a legal assessment by the approval authority found that there is no legal basis for this requirement from their perspective…]A neighbor I wouldn’t want to live next to.
Why did he insist on his anthracite-colored roof when it was not approved by the development plan, but even more importantly: it’s hardly visible? This is exactly the problem we have here in Germany with some troublemakers who insist on something unreasonable. It doesn’t matter; now you bring up the arbitrariness of the municipality, but I question it the other way around: why not accept the different options available instead of pushing through something that’s not supposed to be allowed?
I probably sound like a conformist or a pushover here, but I’m actually the opposite. However, I like to set challenges for myself by solving puzzles (or designing floor plans). So, I don’t necessarily try to follow a straight and paved path. But I do see it as a challenge to design a house that the homeowner really likes within an existing development plan [emoji4]
Otherwise, see #118
ypg schrieb:
This current fixation on, for example, two-story buildings is partly stubbornness,... Why are people who have completely rational and/or emotional reasons and therefore cannot relate to one- or one-and-a-half-story designs immediately labeled as stubborn? Why are they attributed an irrational, unsubstantiated fixation on this building style, even though they know exactly why having two full stories is very important to them?
ypg schrieb:
Many focus on a dark or red roof and are never willing to agree on a different roof shape and color, even though they will never see their own roof themselves (except on maps). And suddenly they end up in a building forum complaining about zoning plans
[...]
But _not_ being willing to compromise, Who exactly is complaining here about zoning plans and/or is unwilling to compromise?
ypg schrieb:
Why did he insist on having an anthracite-colored roof when it’s not approved according to the development plan, but more importantly: not even visible? Probably because, for him, a “not approved” status does not carry legal weight and therefore does not represent a rule he is obliged to follow? I don’t know, you’d have to ask him...
But where do you draw the line when it comes to insisting? In my opinion, it’s a personal decision whether you can live with or accept such arbitrariness or not. I don’t presume to judge his approach as right or wrong; I leave that to others here in the forum.
The fact is that he was wrongly denied the opportunity to exercise his building freedom, which is anchored in the CONSTITUTION. People perceive restrictions on their (basic) rights very differently, as can be seen in other areas like surveillance, informational self-determination, etc. He simply wants to build his house within the legally valid provisions of the development plan (which he is doing) and according to his taste. He is being denied this arbitrarily and without legal basis. Because of that, I can understand his behavior and consider it legitimate, even if I would handle it differently and choose red tiles for my roof because I don’t think the fuss is worth it and I can’t see the roof anyway. But that is MY subjective view, which doesn’t necessarily have to align with his and doesn’t lead me to label him a troublemaker because of it.
Claiming one’s rights and insisting on them is a fundamental element of our rule of law, whose foundation is the constitution. I find it difficult to deny other people this right or to look down on them just because one would handle things differently.
To clarify: let’s say you get caught on camera driving at 80 km/h (50 mph) in a 50 km/h (30 mph) zone, but you were actually driving at the allowed 50 km/h (30 mph). On the evidence photo, both you and a motorcyclist appear. What would you do? Probably file an objection, right? Some might call that being a troublemaker. “Too bad, you shouldn’t have driven that way; there are other roads, and the €100 (about $110) fine plus fees? The whole objection process isn’t worth it and is totally exaggerated.”
I could understand your objection, though. Someone with a six- or seven-figure annual salary might just wonder why bother in the first place and say: do you always have to fight this, isn’t it easier just to pay the peanuts and move on? Wow, I wouldn’t want to live next to someone like that...
It always depends on perspective and whether you are personally affected or not...
Just a quick note because I have little time:
You left out the main reason for the fence—the warming effect. That matters much more than the visual aspect. Anyway.
No, it does cause glare now, of course, when the sun hits them— even when standing on the street. But since I haven’t spent longer periods in the relevant rooms in our shell construction yet, I probably wrote that.
Lawsuits? I hardly believe they would be successful if payment has already been made. But we will see how it actually turns out.
You left out the main reason for the fence—the warming effect. That matters much more than the visual aspect. Anyway.
ruppsn schrieb:
About the roof tiles: I don’t like the glazed ones at all. But you write that they will DEFINITELY cause glare SOMETIME. So it hasn’t happened yet and is only a guess?!
Phew, I find it difficult to judge something based on a guess. If it does cause glare at some point, legal action is still an option. It should be easy to win if the situation is clear and intent can be proven [emoji6]
No, it does cause glare now, of course, when the sun hits them— even when standing on the street. But since I haven’t spent longer periods in the relevant rooms in our shell construction yet, I probably wrote that.
Lawsuits? I hardly believe they would be successful if payment has already been made. But we will see how it actually turns out.
Similar topics