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
Egon12 schrieb:
...
Just as a side note, two-story construction is possible with a pitched roof, provided the ridge height is specified at more than 8 m (26 ft), it doesn't always have to be a mansard roof.There are also single-story houses (there is no such thing as 1.5), which look like two-story ones and offer the same comfort and ceiling height.
I support flexible building guidelines regarding the exterior appearance of houses. Pink walls, glazed roofs, weathered larch, blue windows—neighbors have to tolerate these, just as I have to tolerate them.
I advocate for strict regulations concerning plot coverage ratio, floor area ratio, ridge heights, terrain modulation, and building envelope restrictions. These are real sources of conflict when someone loses sunlight, suffers from water runoff caused by a neighbor, has to deal with retaining walls, and so on.
I advocate for strict regulations concerning plot coverage ratio, floor area ratio, ridge heights, terrain modulation, and building envelope restrictions. These are real sources of conflict when someone loses sunlight, suffers from water runoff caused by a neighbor, has to deal with retaining walls, and so on.
11ant schrieb:
Not more ridiculous than claiming a building freedom anchored in the Basic Law.
[...]
I do not read from this any prohibition on issuing development plans. 2 times 3 makes 4, widdewiddewitt, and three makes nine!! I make the world, widdewidde, the way I like it...Then just google the term building freedom and please read carefully what I wrote. I said that the mentioned building freedom would be DERIVED from Article 14 of the Basic Law, not that it can be found explicitly in its wording. Furthermore, I never claimed what you are putting into my mouth here, namely that a ban on development plans would result from it. I only wrote that regulations must be in accordance with the law and cannot be imposed arbitrarily
AND THAT WAS NOT THE CASE IN THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS LEGITIMATE NOT TO SIMPLY ACCEPT IT FROM THE NEIGHBOR.
There was neither language suggesting that the neighbor completely ignored the development plan, nor that I fundamentally see development plans as conflicting with building freedom. That is all your interpretation, not mine.
Just for you, here is an EXCERPT from the legal assessment of the case by the local administrative authority:
“The 5th Chamber of the Trier Administrative Court ruled on 26.09.2012 (Case No. 5 K 441/12.TR) with the following reasoning in a similar case and rejected a municipality’s lawsuit requesting building supervision intervention:
... However, the authority to issue design regulations is limited by the building freedom guaranteed by Article 14 of the Basic Law (GG), so that there must be a significant public interest for the issuance of such design provisions.”
Sure, clearly everyone in this world is just an idiot who generally doesn’t understand the Basic Law, especially judges who deal with such questions and rule on the law. And I have never claimed anything other than what is cited here.
As I already said, why stick to facts, they are only annoying…
I’m done.
11ant schrieb:
I don’t read a ban on issuing land use plans from this.Yes, that’s why basic German language skills are enough to read laws, but fully understanding them often requires formal study.
Sorry, this sounds harsher than intended, and I value your opinion here in the forum. But in the age of the internet (new territory?), every amateur legal expert throws around legal paragraphs—and most of them actually believe it.
Müllerin schrieb:
You left out the reason for the fence – the heat. That weighs much more than the appearance. Anyway. True, sorry, I missed that. I hadn’t actually considered the heating/warming aspect, an interesting and understandable point. But is that enough? No idea. Is it measurable? Does it affect you or only them or the public space? That would need to be weighed up...
No, it definitely causes glare when the sun hits it. Even when standing on the street. But since I haven’t spent longer periods in the relevant rooms of our shell construction, I probably wrote that. Okay, I understand and that makes sense, although I have no personal experience with glazed roofing and its glare effect. In such a case, I would consider demolition or rethinking reasonable, because immediate neighbors are negatively impacted – meaning the roof actively affects others, and I’m not referring to personal taste [emoji6]
Similar topics