ᐅ Floor plan, house layout EFW 150 m², basement with granny flat – feedback welcomed
Created on: 29 Dec 2024 00:08
N
njAiiii
Hello dear forum,
we have been quietly following along for some time, knowing that we will eventually build our own home. Thanks in advance to everyone who regularly posts here and shares their knowledge. This is very helpful for laypeople like us. We already appreciate you taking the time to focus on our project and critically review it. The moment is getting closer. The plot is secured. It is located near a protected landscape area with a gentle slope. The soil report indicates occasional hydrostatic pressure.
How will we proceed?
What do we want to build?
Development Plan/Restrictions
Plot size: 650m2 (7000 sq ft approx.)
Slope: Yes, gentle (scale 1:250, see elevation in attachment; 1m (3.3 ft) over approx. 10x11m)
Floor area ratio (FAR): No formal development plan, approx. 220m2 (2368 sq ft) floor area possible after approval by building authority
Building coverage ratio: No formal plan, approx. 220m2 (2368 sq ft) floor area possible
Building setback lines and boundaries:
- 5m (16 ft) from the street
- 3m (10 ft) from neighboring properties
Edge building: On both sides and opposite along the street
Number of parking spaces: Probably 3 required (we could move the house back so parking is directly in front)
Number of floors:
- Technically 2 floors,
- But visually aligned with surrounding buildings, so a 1.5-story appearance desired
Roof type: Gable roof with 30-40cm (12-16 inches) overhang
Style: Modern
Orientation: Southeast, but surrounded by many mature historic trees from east to west along the plot boundary
Maximum heights/restrictions: Neighboring buildings, street alignment
Additional requirements: For flat roof, 1m (3.3 ft) setback from street and sides
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style: Modern
Roof pitch:
- Gable roof between 25-33°
- Originally flat roof to the left neighbor, now gable roof preferred for budget, maintenance, and required setbacks
Building type: Single-family house with separate apartment
Basement: Yes
Stories: "1.5"
Knee wall height: 1.90m (6.2 ft) (no official requirement); we want to minimize sloped ceilings
Number of occupants: 4 (2 adults age 40, 2 children aged 4 and 1) + 1 family member for the separate apartment
Space requirements for ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF):
- Originally 141m2 (1519 sq ft) net usable area without circulation space
GF:
- Open living/dining area with pantry
- Office (possibly bedroom later in life)
- Shower bathroom
- Entrance hall
UF:
- 2 children’s rooms from 13m2 (140 sq ft) each
- Bedroom as small as possible + walk-in closet with standard wardrobes
- Bathroom with T-layout, shower, tub, toilet
- Second workspace
Office: Family use or home office?
- Home office twice a week, about 3-4 days out of 5 at home
Visitors per year: One overnight guest per quarter
Open or closed architecture: Open
Conservative or modern construction: Modern
Open kitchen with island: Yes
Number of dining seats: 4-6, extendable up to 10 (2m (6.5 ft) table extendable to 3m (10 ft))
Fireplace: No
Music/sound system wall: No
Balcony, roof terrace: No
Garage/Carport: Prefabricated garage 3x7m (10x23 ft), possibly 3x9m (10x30 ft)
Utility garden, greenhouse: Yes (vegetables, fruit, cistern)
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons why some options are excluded:
House Design
Designer:
What do you particularly like and why?
What do you dislike and why?
Price estimate by architect/planner: $3,300 - $3,500 per m2 (approx. $307 - $325 per sq ft), total approx. $700,000 - $800,000 plus additional costs
Personal maximum budget including fittings: $750,000 plus additional construction costs
Preferred heating technology: sustainable + underfloor heating (comfort); geothermal possible but based on current research not cost-effective
If you had to give up something, which features/finishes?
-cannot give up:
-could give up: probably everything else
Why does the design look like it does now? For example:
Standard plan from designer? No; from architect
- We shared all our ideas and preferences with the architect and discussed them beforehand
- This is the second iteration; earlier option had flat roof dormer with southwest children’s room, which we discarded; roof pitch probably 25° now
Which wishes did the architect implement?
What do you think about it, especially focusing on current pain points:
Due to the maximum number of attachments allowed, we couldn’t add an aerial photo of the tree cover. There are three large deciduous trees directly to the southeast and on the southwest side about two chestnut trees and around 15 pines from the 1950s. We have no worries about summer heat protection 😉 – on the contrary: enlarging the house footprint would cost us garden and especially daylight.
Feel free to ask any questions.
We look forward to your feedback and thank you in advance.
we have been quietly following along for some time, knowing that we will eventually build our own home. Thanks in advance to everyone who regularly posts here and shares their knowledge. This is very helpful for laypeople like us. We already appreciate you taking the time to focus on our project and critically review it. The moment is getting closer. The plot is secured. It is located near a protected landscape area with a gentle slope. The soil report indicates occasional hydrostatic pressure.
How will we proceed?
- Purchase plot, conduct soil survey
- Position and design house on plot with architect (phases 1-3)
- Invitation to bid for general contractor and individual trades for interior work, followed by comparison
- Construction with expert supervision
What do we want to build?
- Single-family house with separate apartment (for family and mainly for tax reasons, especially for the various depreciation options, therefore also with QNG [quality seal for sustainable building])
- Why basement? To maximize garden space, add storage area, and supposedly take advantage of the slope
Development Plan/Restrictions
Plot size: 650m2 (7000 sq ft approx.)
Slope: Yes, gentle (scale 1:250, see elevation in attachment; 1m (3.3 ft) over approx. 10x11m)
Floor area ratio (FAR): No formal development plan, approx. 220m2 (2368 sq ft) floor area possible after approval by building authority
Building coverage ratio: No formal plan, approx. 220m2 (2368 sq ft) floor area possible
Building setback lines and boundaries:
- 5m (16 ft) from the street
- 3m (10 ft) from neighboring properties
Edge building: On both sides and opposite along the street
Number of parking spaces: Probably 3 required (we could move the house back so parking is directly in front)
Number of floors:
- Technically 2 floors,
- But visually aligned with surrounding buildings, so a 1.5-story appearance desired
Roof type: Gable roof with 30-40cm (12-16 inches) overhang
Style: Modern
Orientation: Southeast, but surrounded by many mature historic trees from east to west along the plot boundary
Maximum heights/restrictions: Neighboring buildings, street alignment
Additional requirements: For flat roof, 1m (3.3 ft) setback from street and sides
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style: Modern
Roof pitch:
- Gable roof between 25-33°
- Originally flat roof to the left neighbor, now gable roof preferred for budget, maintenance, and required setbacks
Building type: Single-family house with separate apartment
Basement: Yes
Stories: "1.5"
Knee wall height: 1.90m (6.2 ft) (no official requirement); we want to minimize sloped ceilings
Number of occupants: 4 (2 adults age 40, 2 children aged 4 and 1) + 1 family member for the separate apartment
Space requirements for ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF):
- Originally 141m2 (1519 sq ft) net usable area without circulation space
GF:
- Open living/dining area with pantry
- Office (possibly bedroom later in life)
- Shower bathroom
- Entrance hall
UF:
- 2 children’s rooms from 13m2 (140 sq ft) each
- Bedroom as small as possible + walk-in closet with standard wardrobes
- Bathroom with T-layout, shower, tub, toilet
- Second workspace
Office: Family use or home office?
- Home office twice a week, about 3-4 days out of 5 at home
Visitors per year: One overnight guest per quarter
Open or closed architecture: Open
Conservative or modern construction: Modern
Open kitchen with island: Yes
Number of dining seats: 4-6, extendable up to 10 (2m (6.5 ft) table extendable to 3m (10 ft))
Fireplace: No
Music/sound system wall: No
Balcony, roof terrace: No
Garage/Carport: Prefabricated garage 3x7m (10x23 ft), possibly 3x9m (10x30 ft)
Utility garden, greenhouse: Yes (vegetables, fruit, cistern)
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons why some options are excluded:
- We are an early riser (Larch + Owl), so with two kids (maybe 3 someday), a second shower bathroom is essential
- Open living/dining area as the heart of the home: We cook a lot and enjoy it; this is the social center
- Standard sizes where possible (wardrobe widths, doors, windows, house shape, etc.)
- If reasonable, include basement
- Covered walkway from house entrance to garage (still discussing presentation; garage likely needs attic height >3m (10 ft), which may require an easement on the boundary)
- We will very likely install a “glass awning” on the terrace afterwards
- Photovoltaic system
- Air-to-water heat pump
- Ventilation system
- Open living-dining area (L-shaped)
- Light-filled rooms
- Maximum knee wall height
- Maximized ceiling height on GF/UF
- Living/dining area with floor-to-ceiling windows
- Daylight bathrooms
- Dining table 2m (6.5 ft) long (extendable to 3m (10 ft))
- Modern look with individual accents
- Low roof pitch
- Interior doors at least 1m (3.3 ft) wide
- Shower bathroom on the ground floor
- Walk-in closet
- Pantry also as storage room
- Staircase not directly at entrance door (airlock/dirty corridor)
- Office potentially usable as bedroom
- Kitchen island at least 2m (6.5 ft) wide
- Flat roof dormer and/or bay window
- Second workspace (bedroom, landing, or similar)
- Bathroom with T-layout
- Daylight in landing
- Basement apartment
- Separate entrance to basement apartment
- Lift-and-slide door
- Maximize southwest garden area
- Partially covered terrace
- View axis from hallway to garden
- Daylight in walk-in closet
- External access to basement
- Laundry chute
- Window seat
- Basic smart home features
House Design
Designer:
- Architect, phases 1-3
What do you particularly like and why?
- The ground floor overall; many wishes fulfilled, some highlights
- Bedroom and walk-in closet; probably adding a door in between later
- Landing staircase, view axis, kitchen windows, entrance hall
What do you dislike and why?
- GF office faces southwest instead of east or southeast
- GF living room: fixed glazing towards southwest too small
- GF living room: lift-and-slide door too large, couch doesn’t fit well
- GF living room: considering glazing the entire wall
- GF corridor quite long
- UF sizes depend on GF; rooms (except bedroom and closet) are rather large
- UF bedroom faces southwest instead of north
- UF considering all windows floor-to-ceiling except stair and landing for light and appearance
- Garage not directly attached to house due to access to separate apartment
- Separate apartment quite complex
- Initially we drafted an "L-shaped" house similar to post here, but could not solve circulation areas properly; currently seeing them as a “necessary evil.”
Price estimate by architect/planner: $3,300 - $3,500 per m2 (approx. $307 - $325 per sq ft), total approx. $700,000 - $800,000 plus additional costs
Personal maximum budget including fittings: $750,000 plus additional construction costs
Preferred heating technology: sustainable + underfloor heating (comfort); geothermal possible but based on current research not cost-effective
If you had to give up something, which features/finishes?
-cannot give up:
- Separate apartment (for family and tax benefits)
- Office (need a dedicated setup at least for one person; also for guests and as retreat)
- Two children’s rooms
-could give up: probably everything else
Why does the design look like it does now? For example:
Standard plan from designer? No; from architect
- We shared all our ideas and preferences with the architect and discussed them beforehand
- This is the second iteration; earlier option had flat roof dormer with southwest children’s room, which we discarded; roof pitch probably 25° now
Which wishes did the architect implement?
- Most of them, but not all possible
What do you think about it, especially focusing on current pain points:
- Actually, our space requirements are smaller, but we cannot fit that on the ground floor to align with upstairs (difference about 10-15 m2 (110-160 sq ft)); kids’ rooms and circulation spaces including landing could be smaller
- Window area not yet optimal in living/dining, office, and large upstairs living area; considering 1.10m (3.6 ft) fixed glazing and 2.50m (8.2 ft) lift-and-slide door
- House feels somewhat "buried"; considering raising overall or at least GF + UF by 40-80cm (16-32 inches) above ground level
- The whole topic of “house/garage connection,” earthworks, and plot landscaping is very complex and time-consuming
- No external blinds (raffstores) possible on landing due to knee wall and roof
- Separate “dirty corridor” and staircase; could be a minor disadvantage for aging, might make separate UF rental impossible in future
Due to the maximum number of attachments allowed, we couldn’t add an aerial photo of the tree cover. There are three large deciduous trees directly to the southeast and on the southwest side about two chestnut trees and around 15 pines from the 1950s. We have no worries about summer heat protection 😉 – on the contrary: enlarging the house footprint would cost us garden and especially daylight.
Feel free to ask any questions.
We look forward to your feedback and thank you in advance.
H
hanghaus202330 Dec 2024 19:36I sketched a house measuring 12 by 12 meters (approximately 39 by 39 feet), suitable for a ground-floor granny flat, onto the plot. Compared to your space requirements, the 12 by 12 meter house fits better. The upper floor can then be smaller if desired, or not—after all, you save on the basement.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:
I have sketched a house measuring 12 x 12 m (suitable for a granny flat on the ground floor) on the plot. Without splitting, the layout becomes quite challenging at this size, I think.
Here is a first idea for the split option:
The building footprint here is 15.5 x 10.5 m (51 x 34.5 ft) – there is certainly room to save some centimeters (inches) here.
I will continue from the previous floor plan.
Yes, the basement variant. The basement becomes the lower ground floor, as I explained yesterday: a gentle adjustment towards the eastern edge of the plot. The open plan area of the main apartment could be located there.
On the ground floor, there is the entrance and the parents’ level (bedroom, bathroom, office, and walk-in closet).
Between the main apartment and the street is the separate flat, designed to be airy and on one level.
On the upper floor are the children’s rooms and the utility room—or possibly a hobby room or similar. All of this with a staggered pitched roof, as a modern style was requested.
My software does not support slopes, so just take this as inspiration and a starting point for your imagination, since it is not as extreme as it appears here.
The only more complex or costly elements would actually be the offset of the ground floor and the staggered pitched roof. However, visually these always look more elaborate than they actually cost.
Yes, the basement variant. The basement becomes the lower ground floor, as I explained yesterday: a gentle adjustment towards the eastern edge of the plot. The open plan area of the main apartment could be located there.
On the ground floor, there is the entrance and the parents’ level (bedroom, bathroom, office, and walk-in closet).
Between the main apartment and the street is the separate flat, designed to be airy and on one level.
On the upper floor are the children’s rooms and the utility room—or possibly a hobby room or similar. All of this with a staggered pitched roof, as a modern style was requested.
My software does not support slopes, so just take this as inspiration and a starting point for your imagination, since it is not as extreme as it appears here.
The only more complex or costly elements would actually be the offset of the ground floor and the staggered pitched roof. However, visually these always look more elaborate than they actually cost.
I am just looking at Katja's, which is arranged in a similar way. However, I am still missing an answer to this question
Because if the person concerned is not even aware of their good fortune, which could potentially be seen as misfortune from their point of view, then the idea of an age-appropriate secondary apartment is actually off the table.
ypg schrieb:
From your perspective... what does the person concerned say about it?
Because if the person concerned is not even aware of their good fortune, which could potentially be seen as misfortune from their point of view, then the idea of an age-appropriate secondary apartment is actually off the table.
First of all, a big thank you again for the many posts. Special thanks to those of you who are investing not only brainpower but also time into drawings.
Regarding the relaunch: we are the laypeople. The final solution won’t be dictated by us but by the architect. Otherwise, people always say to describe your wishes and ideas as clearly as possible. What was it again about bathing and getting wet?
By the way, this questionable planning comes from an architect with 20 years of experience and, in our view, solid references. We certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors by iterating it again and raising objections beforehand. I don’t want to exempt myself here. Given all your feedback—and presumably there is an architect among you—I would have expected some pushback from the architect, and that before design 1. To go back to comedy: architects—isn’t that your profession and we are just paying for it?
For us, raising the house definitely makes sense. Every additional centimeter brings more light. Given the historic trees on the property, that makes a difference. In addition, it protects us from heavy rain events. We also get views to the southeast and southwest. Plus, less excavation, more reuse at the front, and less disposal. Why would that hopefully be off the table? What are we missing?
If I understand correctly, the main living area is now in the semi-basement, where the biggest criticism of the basement apartment existed before. That would put the best southwest side for bedroom and office, which we do not want.
At 15.5 by 10.5 meters (51 by 34 feet) × 2 floors × 0.8 efficiency × 3400 USD/m² (square meter), I come to 885,000 USD. At 3200 USD/m², that would be about 833,000 USD. That is clearly above our budget. I absolutely cannot estimate what the split-level design costs. Also, we would probably need two roofs.
Visually, we don’t like the design at all. Substantively, you were criticized a lot for the kitchen not being on the terrace side. Maybe that could still be changed here, but then you would have to go through the living room with every shopping trip and for every little thing from the kitchen.
Basically, however, with this variant and the different heights and roof types, we might take up the flat roof option again. That could completely change the appearance.
11ant schrieb:So far, we have only listed requirements and arranged them like a backlog with clear priorities for orientation if decisions have to be made. That is (at most) a requirements specification. What exactly do you mean by a specification sheet?
That will be the best option. But then the architect should also tear up the old specification sheet; otherwise, it won’t be a genuine relaunch. No guidelines for a supposedly clever “jack-of-all-trades” height positioning.
Regarding the relaunch: we are the laypeople. The final solution won’t be dictated by us but by the architect. Otherwise, people always say to describe your wishes and ideas as clearly as possible. What was it again about bathing and getting wet?
11ant schrieb:No offense, but having the single parent move in with the other parents in a shared apartment seems, despite the humor, less a stroke of genius and more an example of questionable planning. The rest is written with so much imagination that I can only explain it with a bit too much leftover mulled wine. A guest room as a suite for people to escape from the shared apartment. I like your humor, but I’m not sure if you aren’t overshooting the mark here with future planning.
If the in-laws’ house is too big, the individual parent could just move in with them in a shared apartment. Then they don’t have to die in the right order to free up the basement space, whose “bedroom” is a daybed alcove, certainly not suitable for seniors even at seventy in full bloom. So the basement apartment isn’t suitable for a senior but only for the caregiver. Raising the basement apartment by 60cm (2 inches) or whatever to be able to look out from this pre-grave couldn’t possibly fix this botched design. Better to build an above-ground guest room where the three (in-laws) can escape from their shared apartment alternately for a grandchild week. As a suite with a bathroom, which would ease the morning bathroom traffic during the children’s teenage years.
By the way, this questionable planning comes from an architect with 20 years of experience and, in our view, solid references. We certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors by iterating it again and raising objections beforehand. I don’t want to exempt myself here. Given all your feedback—and presumably there is an architect among you—I would have expected some pushback from the architect, and that before design 1. To go back to comedy: architects—isn’t that your profession and we are just paying for it?
hanghaus2023 schrieb:Can you quantify that? We definitely need to specify that more precisely in the calculation.
You captured that quite well. But the retaining walls around the stairs and the terrace are considerably more expensive.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:Off the table and still sensible?
Raising the house is hopefully off the table by now. But it’s certainly sensible if you do it like the neighbors. But then also move the house further back like the neighbors.
For us, raising the house definitely makes sense. Every additional centimeter brings more light. Given the historic trees on the property, that makes a difference. In addition, it protects us from heavy rain events. We also get views to the southeast and southwest. Plus, less excavation, more reuse at the front, and less disposal. Why would that hopefully be off the table? What are we missing?
hanghaus2023 schrieb:Maybe we’re calculating incorrectly, but just to be sure again about “at most seeing the grass surface”:
I once lived in a basement apartment like that. After 3 months, I could afford something better.
Our property also has a slight slope, about 1 meter (3 feet). You get little light in the basement and can at most see the grass surface.
- Our gross floor-to-ceiling height is -2.95 meters (-9.7 feet).
- From -2.77 meters (-9 feet) upward starts the top edge of the finished floor.
- Simplified, we gain 1 meter (3 feet) above the terrain, so we are at -1.77 meters (-5.8 feet).
- Then we raise the house by 80 centimeters (31.5 inches), adjusted to the surrounding heights, making it -1 meter (-3.3 feet). That would mean the grass surface is about hip height.
- At elevation 87.67 meters (287.4 feet) begins the property. The house is roughly at 87.50 to 87.25 meters (287 to 286.5 feet), and the wider it gets, even down to 86.something meters (282 feet). So we could likely reduce excavation significantly, reuse more material, and produce less waste.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:If I’m reading this correctly, your suggestion exceeds the required setback area to the neighbor. Nevertheless, we will take it into account.
I sketched a 12 by 12 meter (39 by 39 feet) house (suitable for basement apartment on the ground floor) onto the property. Compared to your space requirements, the 12 by 12 meter (39 by 39 feet) house looks better. The upper floor can then definitely be smaller—or not, as you save the basement.
ypg schrieb:A huge thank you in advance to everyone who starts drawing here. I have no idea how much work that takes, but it costs time and brainpower. That’s not a given.
I’ll pick up on the previous floor plan.
Yes, the basement variant. The cellar becomes the lower ground floor, exactly as I explained yesterday: a gentle adjustment to the eastern edge of the property. The main living area of the main apartment could be located there.
The entrance and the parent’s floor (bedroom, bath, office, and storage) are on the ground floor.
If I understand correctly, the main living area is now in the semi-basement, where the biggest criticism of the basement apartment existed before. That would put the best southwest side for bedroom and office, which we do not want.
K a t j a schrieb:Thanks again for taking up the pencil virtually.
Without a split-level, it is already tricky to arrange the space at this size, I think.
Here is a first idea for the split-level option:
The building footprint is about 15.5 by 10.5 meters (51 by 34 feet)—though I’m sure a few centimeters could be saved.
At 15.5 by 10.5 meters (51 by 34 feet) × 2 floors × 0.8 efficiency × 3400 USD/m² (square meter), I come to 885,000 USD. At 3200 USD/m², that would be about 833,000 USD. That is clearly above our budget. I absolutely cannot estimate what the split-level design costs. Also, we would probably need two roofs.
Visually, we don’t like the design at all. Substantively, you were criticized a lot for the kitchen not being on the terrace side. Maybe that could still be changed here, but then you would have to go through the living room with every shopping trip and for every little thing from the kitchen.
Basically, however, with this variant and the different heights and roof types, we might take up the flat roof option again. That could completely change the appearance.
ypg schrieb:This is constantly being discussed. Without these conversations, the basement apartment wouldn’t even exist.
However, I still don’t have an answer to this question:
If the person concerned doesn’t even know how fortunate they are, which might actually be a misfortune from their point of view, then the idea of an age-appropriate basement apartment is basically off the table.
Unfortunately, I can't always follow you. What do you mean by:
With a split-level design, there is no excavation at the terraces, since the split ideally follows the slope of the hill exactly.
Regarding the size of the draft, I already mentioned that the sketch has not yet been optimized. It can still be made noticeably smaller without losing quality. However, I don’t optimize sketches that are not really considered, because that would be real work. So, for now, there is just the preliminary draft to capture ideas—let alone the appearance.
I’m missing a few details in your calculations as well. The key factor for the height differences is first and foremost the slope within the building plot. That means roughly the 11m (36 feet) length of the house plus some meters around it. Even with generous estimation, I come to less than 1m (39 inches) height difference. With a 3m (10 feet) floor height, you’re always missing at least 2m (78 inches) in height for a full floor with patio doors. If you raise House 80, there will still be 1.20m (47 inches) of soil underneath. With a 30cm (12 inches) floor structure, the basement windows with 90cm (35 inches) window sills would be right at ground level. But where exactly would your garden exit on the ground floor be? Somewhere at 80 + 50 = 130 cm (51 inches) above ground level? Then you’d probably want to add fill material, which you would also have to retain.
We haven’t even talked about heavy rain and drainage in that “hole” you want to dig in front of the granny flat, and that already gives me a bit of a chill.
You will definitely need to create a model here. That’s just part of dealing with a slope. But there is still a difference between excavating and retaining the entire property and only a part of it.
njAiiii schrieb:
If we go with the version without a basement, Katja thinks we might need a split-level design. In her draft, that means 4 steps = 80cm (32 inches). That’s still a difference. Is it really that significant? It could look something like this.
With a split-level design, there is no excavation at the terraces, since the split ideally follows the slope of the hill exactly.
Regarding the size of the draft, I already mentioned that the sketch has not yet been optimized. It can still be made noticeably smaller without losing quality. However, I don’t optimize sketches that are not really considered, because that would be real work. So, for now, there is just the preliminary draft to capture ideas—let alone the appearance.
I’m missing a few details in your calculations as well. The key factor for the height differences is first and foremost the slope within the building plot. That means roughly the 11m (36 feet) length of the house plus some meters around it. Even with generous estimation, I come to less than 1m (39 inches) height difference. With a 3m (10 feet) floor height, you’re always missing at least 2m (78 inches) in height for a full floor with patio doors. If you raise House 80, there will still be 1.20m (47 inches) of soil underneath. With a 30cm (12 inches) floor structure, the basement windows with 90cm (35 inches) window sills would be right at ground level. But where exactly would your garden exit on the ground floor be? Somewhere at 80 + 50 = 130 cm (51 inches) above ground level? Then you’d probably want to add fill material, which you would also have to retain.
We haven’t even talked about heavy rain and drainage in that “hole” you want to dig in front of the granny flat, and that already gives me a bit of a chill.
You will definitely need to create a model here. That’s just part of dealing with a slope. But there is still a difference between excavating and retaining the entire property and only a part of it.
Similar topics