ᐅ Floor plan discussion based on the existing thread

11ant schrieb:

I would be less familiar with being skeptical about pumice. This building material has always had a high market share here (and surely also in the Ahr Valley – what do you mean by water?)

Well, you can test that here in the forum:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/welchen-stein-habt-ihr-fuer-euer-haus-gewaehlt.45394/

Dachshund90 schrieb:

Hello 11ant,
it’s nice and reassuring for us to hear that. We actually felt a bit uncertain about the pumice stone. There’s really very little information online, and most opinions are over 10 years old.

I don’t understand that – I am also online, and my opinion (based on personal experience) about pumice has been ongoing for over 50 years.

Dachshund90 schrieb:

Can you clarify your concerns about the design process a bit? Ultimately, the design was developed during a several-hour onsite meeting, which we generally thought was good.

Then the designer should be a bit ashamed, and you should trust his acting skills less. I am certainly not alone in my impression that this is a classic case of pushing a (partly residential) basement under a standard design, which, however, has been varied in some details with questionable judgement. My straightforward assessment

11ant schrieb:

At first glance, only two things stand out: the triple-family house south facade due to the window arrangement, and the bricked-in section under the basement stairs. Otherwise, solid basic workmanship – but with significant similarities to the elevated catalog house that the general contractor could also pull out of a drawer. For that, you wouldn’t need an architect in the literal sense ;-)

(to remind everyone: the design can be found in posts #103/104) already arose from the fact that I considered the design to be safe and consequently low risk to implement unchanged due to its minimal deviation from standard. Your mention of a planned extension of 37 cm (14.5 inches) gave me a moment of shock. That again sounds like a rather innovation-averse approach and makes me shake my head – I sincerely hope that it really means an extension in the ridge direction.

In post #64 I linked to a thread by @JayneCobb https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissentwurf-efh-hanglage.37183/, which deals with a similar sloped site.

By the way, regarding my personal advice, it looks like you might "inherit" a latent appointment slot that’s being kept free for @schmeissrein 🙂

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:


In post #64, I included a link to a thread by @JayneCobb https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissentwurf-efh-hanglage.37183/, which deals with a similar sloped site.

However, that one is considerably steeper, especially near the road.

Here, you are just about meeting your 1 m (3.3 ft) rule. (1.2 m (3.9 ft))

I would build without a basement here. But that is not an option for the OP.

11ant schrieb:

Then the planner should be a bit ashamed, and you should trust his acting skills less. I am certainly not alone in my impression that this is a classic case of tacking on a (partly residential) basement under a standard design (which, however, has been questionably modified in some details). My straightforward assessment.

Hmm, okay, skepticism is definitely justified. On the other hand, we have some level of trust since acquaintances were very satisfied with both the architect and the house that was built.
Of course, the living spaces upstairs are more or less standard. For us, it made sense at least to move the study into the basement since there are still two “nice, bright” rooms down there. A basement bar naturally belongs in the basement 😉 Whether the basement qualifies as a residential basement because of the study is something I’ll leave to others. At least, besides the living/dining area, there are additional rooms facing the view with garden access, which have a reasonable time of use — that seemed good to us.
What do you consider to be questionable variations here?

11ant schrieb:

(as a reminder to all: the design can be found in posts #103/104) the conclusion was already drawn that I considered the design to be harmless and accordingly low-risk to implement unchanged due to the limited deviation from the standard. Your mention of a proposed 37 cm (about 15 inches) extension gave me a brief moment of shock. That sounds like a rather innovation-averse approach and makes me want to shake my head — and I sincerely hope that it really means an extension in the ridge direction.

It should be mentioned that there are two designs from two different architects. The original design with Architect A was not further developed. Afterwards, there was a second design by Architect B, which is currently being revised and extended by 37 cm (about 15 inches) in the ridge direction. Mainly because of the narrow passage on the left and right sides of the master bed. From your point of view, is this not sensible? Why?

11ant schrieb:

By the way, regarding my personal consulting, it looks like you might be able to "inherit" a time slot that is have been tentatively reserved for @schmeissrein 🙂

I appreciate your valuable input and hope I won’t have to pay inheritance tax.

hanghaus2023 schrieb:

Here you are just barely within your 1 meter (3 feet) rule. (1.2 m (4 feet))

I would build here without a basement. But that is not an option for the original poster.

First of all, that’s correct. For us, it would be more or less a last resort if the cost estimate “gets out of control.”

Best regards and thanks to you all!

Dachshund90 schrieb:

What questionable variations do you see here?

Count them yourself:

K a t j a schrieb:

The architect designed tall cabinets under the sloped ceiling for you? Very questionable. I would definitely want to see their diploma.

SoL schrieb:

If an architect has messed around with this, then they must have been sleeping in class.

SoL schrieb:

So, to summarize:
- The proposed design is incomplete
- Costs are not determined yet, but the budget is very limited for the size
- Still, you are discussing the final implementation of a design that hasn’t been shown:

.

Dachshund90 schrieb:

Then there was the second design from architect B, which is currently being revised and will be extended by 37cm (15 inches) along the ridge direction. Mainly due to the narrow passageways on both sides of the master bed. From your perspective, does that not make sense? Why?

Extension along the ridge direction is okay, as long as the other dimension remains unchanged. Changes in the gable dimension would be very problematic interventions.

Dachshund90 schrieb:

It would be more or less a last resort for us if the cost estimate gets out of hand.

Wrong! Calculate first, then draw!
Regarding a planned basement, I once had a differing opinion with @hanghaus2023, and an optional basement is always a luxury. In any case, it is poor workmanship to remove a basement (if it contains the required rooms) from the plan afterward just because the architect prefers drawing over calculating. I still have lingering doubts whether your architect would receive the "@Gerddieter approved" quality seal.

Dachshund90 schrieb:

I appreciate your valuable input and hope I won’t have to pay inheritance tax.

The consultation slot is inheritance tax-free but limited: if you haven’t taken it up within a week, you have to wait as a new client at the back of the queue (currently that makes an eight-place difference on the waiting list, which will grow further in May). So don’t delay; attentive readers know the procedure.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

In the ridge direction it’s fine, as long as the other dimension remains unchanged. Changes in the gable dimension would be major interventions.

Hello 11ant,

Exactly, 37cm (15 inches) in the ridge direction, the other dimensions remain unchanged.

11ant schrieb:

Wrong! – Calculate first, then draw!
Regarding a planned basement, I have a different opinion here compared to @hanghaus2023, and an optional basement would always be a luxury. In any case, it’s poor practice to remove a basement (if it contains needed rooms) later on from a plan just because the architect prefers drawing over calculating. I still have doubts whether your architect would get the quality seal "@Gerddieter approved."

I would like to point out that you don’t have all the information from the architect, only my current status. I am optimistic and assume that (even if the architect hasn’t yet provided an "official" cost breakdown) the architect considers early on, within the stated budget and the initial design, whether the basement is truly feasible and, if not, contacts us early or already revises the plan sooner.
So we don’t know exactly when he calculates and when he draws.

11ant schrieb:

if you haven’t committed within a week,

Right now, I’m wondering exactly what you mean by "committed"...

Wishing everyone a nice weekend!