ᐅ Floor Plan of a Narrow, Rectangular L-Shaped House on a Triangular Plot with an Oak Tree
Created on: 4 Nov 2018 10:54
O
Oakland
Hello everyone!
We have purchased a triangular plot of land. As if that weren’t complicated enough, there is also a large oak tree that must be considered during the planning. In our initial considerations, it quickly became clear that the floor plan will have an L-shape.
Does anyone here have experience with this type of plot and a correspondingly shaped floor plan? What additional information is needed to get meaningful advice?
Best regards
We have purchased a triangular plot of land. As if that weren’t complicated enough, there is also a large oak tree that must be considered during the planning. In our initial considerations, it quickly became clear that the floor plan will have an L-shape.
Does anyone here have experience with this type of plot and a correspondingly shaped floor plan? What additional information is needed to get meaningful advice?
Best regards
11ant schrieb:
I would say: unofficially only, the chamber probably wouldn’t be aware of it. From my point of view, this is even legally questionable and disloyal, as the architect is supposed to act in the client’s best interest. Especially since he earns very good money from us. Greed knows no limits.
I would probably reduce his fee by the amount of the bribe.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Oakland schrieb:
Even though this is off-topic:
Is it actually common for architects to receive commissions from the contractors they hire? Obviously unofficially...I was actually going to say "of course not."
But that's not true. They conduct tenders in their own interest.
See the film "Semmeling, einmal im Leben." If you don’t watch it, that’s your loss.
Well...
M
Mottenhausen3 Dec 2019 14:03In defense of Katja (and all the skeptics in this thread, including myself!)
The doubts about the buildability were based on:
1. Locating the subject property only through hand-drawn sketches, Google Maps screenshots, and self-made, guessed site plans
2. Unverifiable statements from authorities regarding required additional setback distances
3. The assumption that the authorities would not reduce minimum setbacks to allow better buildability
4. Permission for building on the property boundary adjacent to the sidewalk
All these points effectively expanded the "building envelope" to a usable size.
So, of course, this bet was nonsense. I could have also described our building plot as unbuildable (wrong sketches, etc.) and now be showing you pictures of the finished house: ha-ha.
The doubts about the buildability were based on:
1. Locating the subject property only through hand-drawn sketches, Google Maps screenshots, and self-made, guessed site plans
2. Unverifiable statements from authorities regarding required additional setback distances
3. The assumption that the authorities would not reduce minimum setbacks to allow better buildability
4. Permission for building on the property boundary adjacent to the sidewalk
All these points effectively expanded the "building envelope" to a usable size.
So, of course, this bet was nonsense. I could have also described our building plot as unbuildable (wrong sketches, etc.) and now be showing you pictures of the finished house: ha-ha.
Oakland schrieb:
Is it actually normal for the architect to receive a commission from the hired contractors? Of course unofficially...Then be careful that there aren’t unexpectedly large excess quantities in an expensive item that you end up having to pay for... I would then offset that against the architect’s commission.Mottenhausen schrieb:
In defense of Katja (and all the skeptics in this thread, including myself!)
The doubts about the buildability were based on:
1. locating the issue on the property only through hand sketches, Google Maps screenshots, and self-made, guessed site plans
2. unclear statements from authorities regarding required additional setback distances
3. the assumption that the authority would not reduce the minimum setbacks to improve buildability
4. permission for boundary construction along the sidewalk
All these points actually expanded the "building envelope" to a reasonable size.
Therefore, this bet was obviously nonsense. I could have also described our building plot as unbuildable (due to incorrect sketches, etc.) and then shown you pictures of the finished house: gotcha. Sounds like you’re implying intent on my part...
It’s not easy to admit, but it was simply incompetence combined with gaps in knowledge.