Hello dear home builders and construction experts,
I am new here and feel like I am still in the early research phase on the topic of building a house. You can find answers to many questions online, but often not specific enough for your own situation. That’s why I would like to use this forum to possibly get some input that can help me with my questions.
The framework conditions
There is a developed (currently unoccupied) family property intended for a new build. The property will be transferred to my wife and her sister-in-law in the coming weeks. The existing building from the 1930s cannot be renovated for less than 75% of the cost of a new build. In addition, the size, layout, and location on the plot are not suitable for a possible conversion into a kind of semi-detached house. Currently, we are planning to demolish the house and build either a semi-detached house or two semi-detached halves on the plot(s). To do this, the plot will be divided into two equal parts. This leads to my first question...
Questions
Markus
I am new here and feel like I am still in the early research phase on the topic of building a house. You can find answers to many questions online, but often not specific enough for your own situation. That’s why I would like to use this forum to possibly get some input that can help me with my questions.
The framework conditions
There is a developed (currently unoccupied) family property intended for a new build. The property will be transferred to my wife and her sister-in-law in the coming weeks. The existing building from the 1930s cannot be renovated for less than 75% of the cost of a new build. In addition, the size, layout, and location on the plot are not suitable for a possible conversion into a kind of semi-detached house. Currently, we are planning to demolish the house and build either a semi-detached house or two semi-detached halves on the plot(s). To do this, the plot will be divided into two equal parts. This leads to my first question...
Questions
- We currently prefer a physical division of the plot (rather than a fractional division) to have a clear separation and avoid dependencies, so to speak no “agreement obligation” regarding the house. This can already be complicated with an even number of parties involved. (We are thinking ahead here, in case one half needs to be sold.) At the moment, there is only one utility connection. If the plot is physically divided and two semi-detached halves are built, would it then be necessary to provide additional connections to sewage, water supply, electrical distribution, telephone, etc.? (I have read that it might be possible to manage with just one connection by arranging an easement, but this could have disadvantages for the servient party.)
- Has anyone here had a similar case or something related with the same questions?
- Is our preference for a physical division well justified, or are the disadvantages of a fractional division not that significant?
- We have already received a few offers for the house (so far only from prefab house suppliers—solid construction, project developers, etc. will follow). It has turned out that building a semi-detached house can be somewhat cheaper than building two separate halves. In this case, residential property ownership would be established. Would it then actually be better to divide the plot fractionally, since a homeowners’ association would be formed? (Regardless of the fact that this is currently not our preferred option.)
Markus
mwinkelm schrieb:
that a semi-detached house with a shared technical room (only accessible from the outside) is not possible in the case of a real partition... I don’t agree with that. With the appropriate easement, it could definitely be feasible, but I would not place this room straddling the boundary; instead, it should be clearly within one of the halves. I have already advised against the Janus mirror twin design (and specifically referenced the example by @MadameP to illustrate such uneven twins – although this is easier to implement on a corner plot). I assume that one half will be closer to square and the other more elongated, and that the two parts will be divided individually. In this context, and to facilitate this, I also recommend not insisting on an equal size division. Therefore, I am quite certain this would be an architect’s project. As a final conclusion from my advice, the building layout should be planned first and only then the boundary line.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
ypg schrieb:
The building permit application must be submitted by each homeowner individually. No. If you trust each other, you can form a homeowner association and appoint an authorized representative.
ypg schrieb:
Bedrooms and utility rooms are not shared spaces. Bedrooms are not, utility rooms – it depends on what they contain. With a combined heat and power system, you can supply heat to the entire neighborhood. In such cases, the building permit/planning permission authority often has little or no involvement depending on the setup.
ypg schrieb:
Real division means everything for oneself. That is, in my opinion, the most practical approach, but not legally required. There are many variations between a multi-family house with rental units and two completely independent single-family homes. The advantages and disadvantages depend heavily on local conditions (plot, zoning plan, etc.), budget, and personal preferences and compromises.
Escroda schrieb:
No. If you trust each other, you can form a building owners' association and appoint an authorized representative. Ah. Okay?! Then I might have confused the original poster with my lack of knowledge, but I think I spoke in his best interest since...
Escroda schrieb:
In my opinion, that is the most sensible approach, though not legally required. ... he mentioned a real division (partitioning) or prefers that option.
Personally, I would advise, especially because of the family relationship, to divide the property physically, since relationships can change within families.
11ant schrieb:
With the appropriate easement, that could definitely be the case.That is something we would rather avoid.11ant schrieb:
Ultimately, my advice is to plan the building first and then the boundary line.That is very good advice, as it might indeed make sense to design the halves somewhat differently to address certain factors such as unfavorable lighting conditions. Excellent!mwinkelm schrieb:
That is very good advice, as it might indeed make sense to design the two halves slightly differently to account for certain factors like unfavorable lighting conditions. Excellent!I had already "feared" that at this point, by "reversing" the sequence, I might lose acceptance of my advice – but this is not my first building planning thought experiment (more like the thousandth), and within a "same width and same depth" constraint, I consider it nearly impossible to achieve the fact that the sun simply rises in the east for everyone.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
After nearly another month of additional research and gathering demolition quotes, I would like to continue this thread a bit further.
I took the comments from @11ant to heart and did some "drawing":
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please don’t take the sketches too literally. There is still room to adjust things if my naive ideas don’t fit. Also, I haven’t yet considered how the garages might or should be positioned; for now, I just placed them along the plot boundaries.
Option 1 – The Standard: Probably doesn’t need much explanation. The right half has relatively little light in the entire living and kitchen area in the evening. The same applies to the left half in the morning.
Option 2 – Staggered: This way, a window on the west side could provide the right half with a bit more evening light. Unfortunately, this somewhat reduces natural light on the terrace of the right half during the evening hours.
Option 3 – Staggered & Rotated: An attempt to eliminate the downside of Option 2 while retaining its benefits.
Option 4 – Freeform: I’m not sure if this is realistic at all. Because this would likely require two different ridge directions. Whether this complies with §34 in the street remains questionable.
What do you think? Do you have other ideas for a layout that provides good natural light to both sides? I think it’s not possible to balance light equally on both sides due to the fact that the houses are built attached.
I took the comments from @11ant to heart and did some "drawing":
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please don’t take the sketches too literally. There is still room to adjust things if my naive ideas don’t fit. Also, I haven’t yet considered how the garages might or should be positioned; for now, I just placed them along the plot boundaries.
Option 1 – The Standard: Probably doesn’t need much explanation. The right half has relatively little light in the entire living and kitchen area in the evening. The same applies to the left half in the morning.
Option 2 – Staggered: This way, a window on the west side could provide the right half with a bit more evening light. Unfortunately, this somewhat reduces natural light on the terrace of the right half during the evening hours.
Option 3 – Staggered & Rotated: An attempt to eliminate the downside of Option 2 while retaining its benefits.
Option 4 – Freeform: I’m not sure if this is realistic at all. Because this would likely require two different ridge directions. Whether this complies with §34 in the street remains questionable.
What do you think? Do you have other ideas for a layout that provides good natural light to both sides? I think it’s not possible to balance light equally on both sides due to the fact that the houses are built attached.