Additional costs for residential units

Here is a suggestion from a forum user. Very recent.

I had already looked at it earlier. But thanks for the hint!

You should mark the 2-meter line in your attic. !,50 is not relevant.

Topic Roof:

During the discussion, I understood that insulating the ceiling of the upper floor (i.e., creating a cold roof) versus insulating the roof itself (i.e., the possibility of expanding the attic) does not differ much in price.
If that is the case, why should one choose the cold roof at all?

A cold roof is planned when you want to cost-optimally build a standard hipped roof with, say, 20 degrees, where the standing height in the middle is just 1.50 meters. The roof can then serve to store boxes.

The difference is also made by the ceiling: for a storage roof, you use wood, not concrete. For a junior room, more expensive concrete would make more sense.
Overall, your roof is already really expensive.

No matter how unfavorable a tent roof (or any other roof) is for expansion. If it causes no or only minor additional costs to insulate the space there, wouldn’t that always be better as a potential safeguard?

The 10 sqm mentioned by is the generalized savings in insulation. After all, you plan cost-optimally. Sometimes every sqm counts in the calculation. That’s why the roof construction that cannot be walked on is chosen. That is far cheaper than a walkable roof.
Planning is needs-oriented and not generalized: one person is satisfied with a cold roof, another is not.

Or is a cold roof so advantageous?

You should draw the 2-meter line in your attic. !,50 is not relevant.

The inner walls of the floor start at 2 meters. So the entire visible living space in the attic has a ceiling height of 2+ meters. However, I do not want to rule out that I might be misunderstanding something again about the roof structure. The dashed red lines on the floor plan represent the four inclines of the roof. At the end of the gray wall, approximately 280 cm of roof incline length would be reached, which means the room there should be 2 meters high. Here again is the cross-section: But as I said: mistake not excluded. If that roughly fits: maybe this makes it a bit clearer why I am still insisting on finishing the tent roof. According to the calculations/visualizations, that represents a considerable number of square meters of living space. I would consider it a waste if the potential is not utilized. Of course, in the end, it is also a question of price so that it becomes habitable at all. Or put differently: if I do not finish this thing, I also do not need a tent roof with a 35-degree pitch. Then 18 degrees or something similar with a cold roof would suffice. But I would also find that visually not quite as nice or rather "more ordinary." Then the alternative would be that the building's footprint overall becomes somewhat larger to have more living space on the ground and upper floors and to compensate for the absence of the attic.

I have just discovered a mistake in the version. The skylights in the attic bathroom and bedroom are currently located in the middle of the slope of the two ridges below :rolleyes: Stupid, I had already fixed that in a version before. Probably then not transferred anymore. So they need to be arranged differently. They could generally be a bit lower and just a tad more towards the center.

Here is a representation of the attic.

Or in other words: If I don’t remove this thing, I don’t need a tent roof with a 35-degree pitch.

I totally agree with you.
I found my protractor, marked your KS of one meter, etc., and if the house were to be built here in Lower Saxony (we have the 2.20 and 2/3 rule, and with a gable roof it would result in a full storey ;)) it would mean an immense area, since the KS plays a significant role.

Why don’t you just plan for a KS of 2 meters for your attic, take a 22-degree pitch, and thus reduce your house by about 50 cm in height, but then have a three-storey building with many escape routes? :cool: