Hello everyone,
I’m asking out of curiosity if there are any homeowners here who have built a gable roof and deliberately chose not to make the knee wall as high as possible? Many are restricted by zoning regulations or planning permission, but some are not.
We built a gable roof in 2018/2019 with a knee wall height of 1.30 m (4 feet 3 inches) interior measurement, a roof pitch of 38 degrees, and just under 170 sqm (1,830 sq ft) of living space. Since we don’t have any specific zoning restrictions here, we could have built it differently or higher. However, we decided against it for the following reasons:
- We actually like sloped ceilings, as long as we’re not talking about a knee wall of only 40 cm (16 inches). It feels particularly cozy in the bedrooms.
- We are both only 170 cm (5 feet 7 inches) tall and therefore hardly feel restricted. If we were taller, it would probably be a different story.
- At the time, a gable roof with a very high knee wall didn’t appeal to us visually at all (it somehow looked too “leggy”); meanwhile, I (my partner does not) also find houses with a high knee wall and a shallower roof pitch very stylish. The only downside is that it reduces the size of the attic.
I’m really looking forward to your replies.
Best regards
I’m asking out of curiosity if there are any homeowners here who have built a gable roof and deliberately chose not to make the knee wall as high as possible? Many are restricted by zoning regulations or planning permission, but some are not.
We built a gable roof in 2018/2019 with a knee wall height of 1.30 m (4 feet 3 inches) interior measurement, a roof pitch of 38 degrees, and just under 170 sqm (1,830 sq ft) of living space. Since we don’t have any specific zoning restrictions here, we could have built it differently or higher. However, we decided against it for the following reasons:
- We actually like sloped ceilings, as long as we’re not talking about a knee wall of only 40 cm (16 inches). It feels particularly cozy in the bedrooms.
- We are both only 170 cm (5 feet 7 inches) tall and therefore hardly feel restricted. If we were taller, it would probably be a different story.
- At the time, a gable roof with a very high knee wall didn’t appeal to us visually at all (it somehow looked too “leggy”); meanwhile, I (my partner does not) also find houses with a high knee wall and a shallower roof pitch very stylish. The only downside is that it reduces the size of the attic.
I’m really looking forward to your replies.
Best regards
bauherr2019_he schrieb:
But as a homeowner building a gable roof house, don’t I pay more if I add, for example, 20 sqm (215 sq ft) more floor area (upstairs and downstairs) than if I simply raise my knee wall significantly? The builder makes more profit when you pay more for the same effort, or when they reduce effort for the same price. You will pay more if you get more living space (according to DIN standards or local living space regulations—depending on which the builder uses to measure and charge this "extra")—so you will pay more for additional square meters, regardless of how they are created. What appears in the extra cost list as "knee wall height increase" is essentially "calculated additional floor area due to raised knee wall." A "knee wall height increase" meaning "more rows of bricks under the sloping roof but the same type of roof truss structure" increases both effort and price.
If you build a substitute villa—i.e., by transforming the attic (DG) into a full upper floor (OG) with a "knee wall 260cm (8 ft 6 in)" or "knee wall 100%"—more brickwork rows will naturally be added, generating more (also calculated) square meters of living space. However, above these newly built walls you will not have a complex rafter roof structure, but a considerably simpler truss roof that acts as a straightforward "cover," making it cheaper to construct.
In comparison across building types—"country house" versus "urban villa"—the "urban villa" with the same nominal size is usually offered at a lower price. In comparison within the same category—"more height upstairs" versus "more floor area upstairs"—you will get "more height" cheaper because you can raise it "just upstairs" individually, whereas more floor area usually means increasing both "upstairs" and "downstairs," which is reflected in the price.
All versions share the principle that, for "custom design," the nominal square meter is the calculation basis because it is the easiest and most communicable billing measure for the contractor.
For the "redesign of a catalogue plan," the situation differs: here, increasing width is more expensive than increasing length, and a knee wall height increase combined with a roof pitch change is always more expensive than keeping the same roof pitch—even if the attic space doesn’t actually become "larger."
Simply put, any change is more expensive the more dimensions it affects. The worst case is changing "length and width and pitch." For stairs, construction complexity, shaping, and crane handling are relevant price factors. Again, the first and second laws of gastronomy always apply 🙂
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
So far, only window placement and aesthetic/furniture-related reasons have been discussed here – I’m wondering if there are also technical reasons for choosing a specific roof pitch (maintenance, rain, snow load)?
For example, with a typical production house, we would have the choice between a 0.9 m knee wall + 40° roof pitch versus a 1.25 m knee wall + 35° roof pitch. Yes, the differences aren’t huge, but 1.25 m sounds a bit more practical. A 35° pitch is also said to be slightly better for photovoltaic systems, but could there be significant disadvantages regarding waterproofing, maintenance, or snow load? Or are these differences negligible, meaning you should really decide based only on interior space, aesthetics, and window design?
For example, with a typical production house, we would have the choice between a 0.9 m knee wall + 40° roof pitch versus a 1.25 m knee wall + 35° roof pitch. Yes, the differences aren’t huge, but 1.25 m sounds a bit more practical. A 35° pitch is also said to be slightly better for photovoltaic systems, but could there be significant disadvantages regarding waterproofing, maintenance, or snow load? Or are these differences negligible, meaning you should really decide based only on interior space, aesthetics, and window design?
jerimata schrieb:
So far, only window-related and visual/furniture design reasons have been discussed here – I’m wondering if there are also technical reasons for a certain roof pitch (maintenance, rain, snow load)? No, I have just explained technical reasons (including cost-related ones) in post #37!
By the way, in alpine regions, the risk of roof avalanches is addressed with low roof pitches. In lowland areas, a roof pitch of 35° or 40° does not significantly affect how long snowflakes remain on the roof.
jerimata schrieb:
but could there be significant disadvantages regarding waterproofing/maintenance and snow load, The limit for a more limited selection of roofing materials is at about 21/22° roof pitch, so well below 35/40°.
jerimata schrieb:
For example, with a standard house, we would have the choice between a 0.9 m knee wall + 40º roof pitch versus a 1.25 m knee wall + 35º roof pitch. A 90 cm (35 inches) knee wall with a 40° pitch also reaches a height of 125 cm (49 inches) about 42 cm (17 inches) inward from the wall; 200 cm (79 inches) is reached after 131 cm (52 inches). With 125 cm (49 inches) knee wall and 35°, you would reach that height after 107 cm (42 inches). So only choose 90/40 if the storage space in the attic is a decisive factor; otherwise, 125/35 is better in all other respects. That’s all the advice I can give without knowing your specific project.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics