Hello to all interested readers,
For about half a year now, my wife and I have been planning our new home. We have found a nice plot of land and have also decided on the building style (Ytong kit house). Initial contact with the company has been made.
Now the first draft from their architect has arrived, and we find it far from satisfactory.
Our goal is a KfW 40+ house on a slope, with a slight incline of about 3m (10 feet) over the first 5m (16 feet) in depth, then another 2m (7 feet) incline over the remaining 30m (98 feet) of depth.
- Front side facing southwest
- Lower floor planned as a full story, possibly to be converted into an apartment later. At the moment, it will be used as a guest room and office
- Roof of the office = terrace
Garage as an attached structure with a flat roof.
I’ve attached some pictures. The draft itself was created with MeinHeim3D V3. Unfortunately, I can’t upload that here. I also have plans in PDF if that helps.
The architect says that our draft is unfavorable because of the protruding office and the garage. This would be bad from an energy perspective.
Now I am under the impression that with good insulation, a lot can be achieved and that with KfW 40+ the final energy value counts, so I can compensate for some losses in the building envelope by the technology used.
Am I seeing this wrong?
For about half a year now, my wife and I have been planning our new home. We have found a nice plot of land and have also decided on the building style (Ytong kit house). Initial contact with the company has been made.
Now the first draft from their architect has arrived, and we find it far from satisfactory.
Our goal is a KfW 40+ house on a slope, with a slight incline of about 3m (10 feet) over the first 5m (16 feet) in depth, then another 2m (7 feet) incline over the remaining 30m (98 feet) of depth.
- Front side facing southwest
- Lower floor planned as a full story, possibly to be converted into an apartment later. At the moment, it will be used as a guest room and office
- Roof of the office = terrace
Garage as an attached structure with a flat roof.
I’ve attached some pictures. The draft itself was created with MeinHeim3D V3. Unfortunately, I can’t upload that here. I also have plans in PDF if that helps.
The architect says that our draft is unfavorable because of the protruding office and the garage. This would be bad from an energy perspective.
Now I am under the impression that with good insulation, a lot can be achieved and that with KfW 40+ the final energy value counts, so I can compensate for some losses in the building envelope by the technology used.
Am I seeing this wrong?
Without precise dimensions, you can only roughly assess the layout of the rooms, not their actual sizes.
And honestly: if the software is faulty or used incorrectly, just use graph paper or millimeter paper and a pencil. That way, you can not only mark the necessary measurements but also add notes and terrain contours.
To me, the entire living room area is too narrow and also too long. As currently drawn, you can’t reach the kitchen without getting bruised. Comments on the rest have already been made recently...
And honestly: if the software is faulty or used incorrectly, just use graph paper or millimeter paper and a pencil. That way, you can not only mark the necessary measurements but also add notes and terrain contours.
To me, the entire living room area is too narrow and also too long. As currently drawn, you can’t reach the kitchen without getting bruised. Comments on the rest have already been made recently...
@kbt09 Thank you very much for the explanations. I will review everything again and try to incorporate the suggestions and comments below. I’ll get back to you tomorrow with the results.
As for the garage, it’s due to the slight slope on the property. Since the substructure is visible there, it increases the area counted towards the neighbor, and it then has to be at least 3m (10 feet) away from the boundary.
However, there are still uncertainties regarding the zoning plan. It seems we received the wrong one from the municipality. We will clarify this on Monday.
Have a nice Sunday morning, everyone, and many thanks.
As for the garage, it’s due to the slight slope on the property. Since the substructure is visible there, it increases the area counted towards the neighbor, and it then has to be at least 3m (10 feet) away from the boundary.
However, there are still uncertainties regarding the zoning plan. It seems we received the wrong one from the municipality. We will clarify this on Monday.
Have a nice Sunday morning, everyone, and many thanks.
Hello,
after a long time, something has happened, unfortunately negative. During our last conversation with the architect, he informed us that according to the development plan there must be an 8m (26 feet) wide open space to the neighbor on one side of our planned property. When we asked the municipality if anything could be done about this, they said, "No, the building must be constructed within the building envelope."
Therefore, the plan is now to take the neighboring plot. It is narrower, but without the 8m (26 feet) requirement, we have more space. The design has been adjusted accordingly.
For the previous design, the architect also completed the energy demand calculation.
Energy demand of the project: 6.64 kWh/(m²a)
Primary energy demand of the project: 11.96 kWh/(m²a)
I don’t fully understand the difference. Well.
Attached is an excerpt from the development plan showing the 8m (26 feet) rule. Why didn’t the architect notice this earlier? Is that normal?
Also attached are the new floor plans in PDF format. I hope they are clear.
As always, I look forward to your opinions and comments.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
after a long time, something has happened, unfortunately negative. During our last conversation with the architect, he informed us that according to the development plan there must be an 8m (26 feet) wide open space to the neighbor on one side of our planned property. When we asked the municipality if anything could be done about this, they said, "No, the building must be constructed within the building envelope."
Therefore, the plan is now to take the neighboring plot. It is narrower, but without the 8m (26 feet) requirement, we have more space. The design has been adjusted accordingly.
For the previous design, the architect also completed the energy demand calculation.
Energy demand of the project: 6.64 kWh/(m²a)
Primary energy demand of the project: 11.96 kWh/(m²a)
I don’t fully understand the difference. Well.
Attached is an excerpt from the development plan showing the 8m (26 feet) rule. Why didn’t the architect notice this earlier? Is that normal?
Also attached are the new floor plans in PDF format. I hope they are clear.
As always, I look forward to your opinions and comments.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Similar topics