ᐅ Low ridge height results in a short knee wall.

Why not a bungalow with a cathedral ceiling

Tassimat schrieb:

@ruedigold: A question about your section drawing in post #16:

Why does the upper edge of the floor start at 55cm (22 inches) above ground level? More generally: why not have the floor level flush with the ground, or maybe even slightly below?
Then I see that the roof slope is applied along the 14m (46 feet) wide side. You gain more height if you rotate the roof 90° and use the 10m (33 feet) side instead. I hope what I mean is clear.

First of all, I want to say that although the architect is already on vacation, she quickly made a section drawing for me in the evening. I find that more than dedicated! So the answer is: I can’t answer that question yet. I will wait for her to return from vacation and then ask.

Only this way was I able to bring their initial design here for discussion. Equally important as the starting height of the upper edge, in my opinion, is the ceiling height and the thickness of the roof insulation. The ceiling thicknesses shown in the section correspond to the measurements of the residential building.

Basically, your question points right to where I already was with my Downing Street 10 example: why does a house in a flat area (valley of a stream) even have a step? To prevent rainwater from flowing in? That’s a genuine question. In my humble opinion, 15 cm (6 inches) or less should be enough, or why not zero? Then the house would be fully accessible for wheelchairs.

Roof slope and rotation… I was also surprised that the section “faces the wrong way.” In my drawing above, a knee wall of 0.70m (28 inches) should be possible at a 2.70m (8 ft 10 in) ground floor height. I will wait until she is back.

ypg schrieb:

I understand that you want the space to be bright, spacious, open, and atmospheric, but why are you focusing on a specific number? Ceiling height? It’s the windows that make the difference!

In my opinion, you’re overlooking the fact that rooms aren’t unattractive just because they have sloped ceilings or a low kneewall. It may be that you want more usable wall height on the upper floor, but that doesn’t automatically mean the space is “ugly” or “unusable”!

That’s true. I saw this at HUF, where they have narrow, small windows at ceiling height in the kitchen... and that made a ceiling height of 2.50 or 2.60 meters (8.2 or 8.5 feet) feel like 2.70 meters (8.9 feet). The consultant really nailed it! Because I had just said 2.70 meters (8.9 feet) offhand. A house is definitely a world of illusions...

Ugly is not the issue here, I’m not saying or implying that. It has to be clear what counts as “actual” living space—space you can really use—and what is counted as living space only in calculation, such as 50% of a terrace. I’m only after clarity so that I don’t fool myself about the property.

The first consultant who looked at the development plan roughly estimated that a maximum of 230 square meters (2,475 square feet) of “living space” would be possible! I thought: great, all good!
Assuming I had immediately bought the plot based on that advice (panic purchases happen everywhere), what Christmas would I have now? No, first the review, then the purchase.

ypg schrieb:


What do you expect from the community here if you look down on what others have built?
Furthermore, the settlement house you posted is actually a modern home with the ideal shape for an energy-efficient house. A two-story building unfortunately has much more external surface area, which also applies to any knee wall height.
A settlement house is usually a red brick building with a roof pitch greater than 45 degrees.

Are you trying to say that the Danhaus Engelsby feels cramped or oppressive?
[ATTACH alt="35549681-5896-4691-A782-9C6D74659439.jpeg"]41251[/ATTACH]

Sorry, first, I would never criticize what someone else likes or can afford.
Second, misunderstanding. I really like the Danhaus Engelsby, especially the integrated bricks; it is the smallest of the 25 houses in terms of sand-lime brick (I believe), but (I still have to find out) it is definitely taller than 7.20 meters (23.6 feet).

If it turns out that even this small house is NOT allowed to be built, then I seriously wonder: What is the point of this building area and who is it supposed to benefit? This question should be directed to the authorities and also to the developer.

ypg schrieb:


Honestly, I don’t quite understand the idea of a) building with a basement and b) having a lot of living space on the upper floor. Your idea of creating a separate apartment upstairs wasn’t really addressed or acknowledged here. I also don’t understand the motivation. I don’t see the need for an apartment up there unless it is absolutely necessary (for care staff or something), but in that case, 60sqm (650 sq ft) would be enough.

YPG, you’ve raised many good questions that even touch on personal matters. About the basement: I assume that all the technical equipment belongs there, not in the so-called “living area.” The utility room reduces the usable living space. Where should the laundry be dried, where should ironing be done, where should the chest freezer be placed, where should provisions be stored, and where will my wine rack be located (hopefully not next to the heater)? I have at least 20 reasons for wanting a basement. Please note: I’m not talking about costs here, but the value a basement adds.

Only when I understand the value of a house do I then consider and weigh the costs.

ypg schrieb:



I'll put it this way: why not focus on a bungalow? A cozy, comfortable house for the two of you... based on what you’ve described about your rental apartment, I’m surprised you’re even considering self-building.
Personally, my advice is: don’t build for others. Build what you will actually live in—no unused rooms, no spaces that are only used two or three times a year.
And don’t fixate on any particular numbers.

Cozy... that’s not really my style... I prefer spacious. Regarding sleeping: the grandchildren are quite active during the day at first. I want to take that into account because they like it better at our place than in their parents’ city apartments. There are several reasons for that, which are directly related to the house, the ground floor of the house, and not the sleeping arrangements. They sleep in the basement with us and have no problem with that.

“Don’t build for others” is a very accurate remark.
Unused rooms are also true, and yet not entirely, since there will definitely be enough clutter that will find its final resting place there...