ᐅ Living area approximately 8 m² smaller in the permit drawings compared to the design (general contractor)
Created on: 16 Apr 2025 11:23
I
ITSM2025
Hi everyone,
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
ypg schrieb:
So the design on the left is the one drawn up by the "main contractor"?Yes, exactly. And thank you for your contribution!
ITSM2025 schrieb:
"In accordance with the KfW40 standard requirements and the preliminary specifications from our structural engineer, we have increased the exterior wall thickness from the original 42.5 cm (17 inches) to now 49 cm (19 inches). Additionally, on the ground floor, interior walls planned according to the structural engineering have a thickness of 17.5 cm (7 inches). This results in a small reduction of the actual living area, as well as slight shifts of interior walls based on statics. However, these changes are absolutely necessary."Well, then everything is clear!ITSM2025 schrieb:
"We have also expanded the captain’s gable for free, increasing its width from the original 3.49 m (11.5 ft) to now 3.74 m (12.3 ft). The reason for this is that the two ground floor supports need to be about 55 cm (22 inches) thick due to structural requirements. To prevent the entrance area from feeling cramped and small, while at the same time making the supports appear solid and visually pleasing, we decided to enlarge it."Clearly no one is trying to take advantage of you here. By the way, your general contractor (GC) is working precisely on a 10 cm (4 inch) modular grid, so there’s no cutting of bricks or patchwork carpentry involved. That alone will make many homeowners envious—at least those who face risks with a GC without proper protection.ITSM2025 schrieb:
"So what I’m actually getting at: Should I start a major dispute with the GC now or is this just 'how it is' and something I have to accept?"As I said before, there is no reason to make a big issue out of this, and it’s not a case of “it is just how it is.” You have an exemplary GC, and your mistake was not telling them that any wall thickness adjustments should be done in a way that does not reduce the living area (for example, by shifting outward). You can still fix this with a brief email. It will cost them only a few clicks, and then you’ll have your house 13 cm (5 inches) wider and deeper—and you’ll pay the price accordingly.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Well, then everything is clear!
It’s obvious there’s no one trying to take advantage of you. By the way, your general contractor (GC) plans neatly using an octagonal grid, meaning no cutting bricks or sloppy workarounds. Because of that alone, many other homebuilders will envy you—at least those who go unprotected to a GC.
As I already mentioned, there’s no issue to make a fuss about, and it’s not a case of “it just is.” You have a model GC, and the only thing you missed was not telling them to adjust the wall thickness in a way that doesn’t reduce living space (so the adjustment would be made outward). You can still fix this with a short email. It’ll only cost them a few clicks, and then you’ll have your house 13 cm (5 inches) wider and deeper—along with the price for it. So, for me as a layperson, does this mean that this approach is standard and legally as well as technically correct? And if the GC then says I need to pay for the increase in floor area according to the plans, is that completely understandable and justifiable from your point of view?
ITSM2025 schrieb:
Ok, so for me as a layperson, does this mean that this approach is common and correct both legally and technically? It is not only correct, but actually exemplary!
As I said, the mistake is 1. on your side and 2. can be fixed with a simple, very quick email from you.
ITSM2025 schrieb:
And if the general contractor then says that I have to pay for the increase in area based on the areas shown in the design, is that absolutely understandable and reasonable from your point of view? No one but you caused this conflict (EH 40, caliber 425, structural wall shell made of sand-lime brick – three requirements, of which only two can be met simultaneously), so it is entirely up to you to resolve it. Whether you choose to increase the wall thickness outward or, more reasonably, give up the sand-lime brick for the structural wall shell is your decision. With aerated concrete, you can revert to caliber 425 (or possibly to caliber 440; in that case, it’s better to take the extra 1.5cm (0.6 inch) from the inside to remain within the construction dimension on the outside).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
This is not just correct, but exemplary!
As I said, the fault lies 1. with you, and 2. can be fixed by a very simple brief email from your side.
No one but you caused the conflict (EH 40, size 425, structural wall shell made of sand-lime brick – three requirements, of which only two can be met simultaneously), so it is solely in your hands to resolve it. Whether you choose to place the wall thickness increase on the outside or reasonably move away from sand-lime brick for the structural wall shell is your decision. With aerated concrete you can revert to size 425 (or possibly size 440, but then it’s better to take that one and a half centimeters from the interior to stay within the construction dimension on the outside). Could you please clarify this? Why is this my fault? I communicated clearly with the general contractor from the beginning about what I wanted, which led him to create that colorful sketch with the corresponding areas shown in numbers in the middle of the rooms. I don’t understand, sorry. I’m not a professional.
I’ll write him that simple, short email and then see how it goes. Sounds straightforward enough.
Similar topics