ᐅ Planning a Patio and Roof Covering

Hello everyone,

building on our floor plan planning, we would now like to focus on the terrace and a suitable roofing solution.

For now, we have planned the terrace with a width of 8.65 meters (28 ft 4 in) and a depth of 3.50 meters (11 ft 6 in).
But does the terrace really need to be this wide?

We want to add a roof over the terrace. Ideally, it should at least cover the large window front so that the roof can provide indirect shading for the living room, without having to lower the blinds all the time.
It probably also makes sense to extend the roof to the garage area so you can sit there comfortably, right?

Do you have any ideas for us?

I would definitely make the terrace 4m deep (13 feet). You need 1m (3 feet) of space between the pushed-back chair and the house wall to allow passage, even if someone is sitting at the table, without them having to move forward. The same applies on the other side...

With a 3.50m (11.5 feet) deep terrace, you need to subtract 1m (3.3 feet) for the table width, leaving only about 1.25m (4.1 feet) on each side of the table. If you use a terrace chair with a reclining backrest, there won’t be any space, and it will be very tight to walk behind the chair. You don’t necessarily have to extend the terrace across the entire width of the house; you could also create a planting bed or a raised planter on the right or left side. It would also be possible to have both a dining table and a lounge area on the wide terrace, depending on what you have in mind.

Best regards
Sabine

Yes, 3.50 m (11.5 ft) is too little... I would even recommend going for 4.50 m (15 ft) to allow enough space to walk around the table comfortably. Especially with a width of over 8 m (26 ft), anything less looks like a long, narrow corridor.

Better to have 4.5 m (15 ft) depth and only 5 m (16.5 ft) width than 3.5 m (11.5 ft) depth and over 8 m (26 ft) width.

Oh dear, you’re confusing me.
I don’t understand why we have been assuming a depth of 3.50 meters (11.5 feet) all along.

Tego12 schrieb:

I would even go for 4.50m (14.8 feet)

That would mean 1 meter (3.3 feet) less green space in the small garden.

The terrace should have a certain width, though, otherwise the roof covering will look odd again.

-SCEPS- schrieb:

Oh dear, you’re confusing me.

Maybe you should consider whether you would comfortably host guests under a covered area when it’s raining heavily enough that you need the cover.
Not that you would just go inside anyway or only fill a table once a year, so you might never actually be in that situation.

I’m definitely in favor of spaciousness, always happy with a few extra square meters, and if you have the space, the budget, and the building permit / planning permission for 4.50 meters (14.8 feet), then go for it. But it’s something else when you talk about shading: inside, you’re looking at the frame, no light comes into the house anymore, and outside you just have a roof over your head again.
Just google what a terrace is and ask yourself what you expect from it and when and how you use it.