ᐅ What would you do differently in your next house build?

ypg schrieb:

If there is a zoning plan and you follow it, there should be no problems.

Off-topic: And what if the regulations are unreasonable? Time and again, you hear about issues related to filling ground.... I will never understand why no one looks at this beforehand and considers how everything will look later on..... In our new housing development, we have a beautiful hilly landscape..... everyone has decided their own individual height level.....

It was similar for us. A few years ago, construction was only allowed in the Franconian style. The only thing missing was having to rebuild the small Rhön half-timbered houses. The municipality rejected many things, especially in the town center. What was the result? Vacant properties in the town center.

Now, with a new mayor and new council, the approach is more like "no matter how, as long as something gets built."

The right balance is key; after all, who would want to see Bauhaus-style houses or the many cookie-cutter urban villas in a historic village center?

Egon12 schrieb:
The right balance is important—who would want to see Bauhaus-style houses or the many standard cookie-cutter suburban villas in a historic village center?

In a well-maintained historic village center, yes, but in a village core that is still evolving, where every generation has contributed to construction, there is no uniformity. Timber-framed houses stand next to buildings from the 1960s, and the school from the early 1800s was replaced by a building from the 1980s.

Take my grandparents’ house as an example: raised around 1900, cattle barn moved out in the late 1920s, barn built in the 1940s, cellar suddenly below street level in the 1950s, tractor garage added in the 1950s, extension built in the 1980s. The original house has an old cellar; the exact construction year is unknown.

Many village centers look like this.

Additionally, many villages away from metropolitan areas and commuter belts face more people moving away than moving in, as well as declining birth rates. In that context, Bauhaus or standard suburban villas are better than decaying historic buildings.

haydee schrieb:
In a well-maintained historic village center, yes, but in a village center that is alive and where every generation has built something, there is no uniformity. Half-timbered houses stand next to buildings from the 1960s, and the school from the early 1800s was replaced by a building from the 1980s.
Just my grandparents' house alone: extended around 1900, cowshed moved out in the late 1920s, barn built in the 1940s, basement suddenly below street level in the 1950s, tractor garage built in the 1950s, and an extension added in the 1980s. Original house with old basement of unknown construction year.
That’s how many village centers look.

Many villages outside metropolitan and suburban areas also face more people leaving than moving in or being born. Better a Bauhaus or standard suburban homes than dilapidated historic buildings.

I wholeheartedly agree!
I got so upset at the community meeting back then. In villages, there is definitely not a "uniform" architectural style; rather, there are houses from the 17th century up to the 1960s, and each period had very different construction methods compared to 1658. You can clearly see that, and that’s a good thing. The picturesque villages we like so much are not just one architectural style, but have developed over centuries, with each era having its own specific requirements and limitations (just consider the building materials available at the time).
Large window areas were not built 150 years ago because they caused thermal bridges. Who knows—if they had efficient triple-glazed windows back then, maybe they would have installed bigger windows already? We have that technology now, so why should I be forced to use window sizes that made sense purely because of the materials from 150 years ago?
Exactly: a village is alive. And it should be. That makes it interesting and vibrant. I don’t want to live in an open-air museum.
I’d rather accept some architectural mistakes (for example, I find the rustic Seppelhose style with heavy balconies awful—those balconies are not typical here at all, you’d rather find them in South Tyrol) and buildings I don’t like (though others might), in exchange for a living, breathing village scene and not a museum piece.
I’m even willing to accept some of the standard suburban homes that I usually dislike for that reason.

Egon12 schrieb:
It’s the healthy mix that counts; who really wants to see Bauhaus-style houses or countless identical suburban homes in a historic village center?

III I'M!
Better this than everything looking the same. A healthy mix includes that too.

However, we are pretty off topic now, but I admit this topic really moves me right now.

Why not have "good" Bauhaus architecture next to an Art Nouveau villa? If the architecture is good, it works!! Every style has its justification; the only question is, what defines "good" architecture?

Actually not off-topic, it fits quite well in this thread.