Building an end terraced house - Which technical requirements should be considered?

Ultimately, one wonders whether a uniform overall building is actually more beautiful. This diversity may then possibly have a kind of [Küntlerviertel-Charme], who knows.

The criteria are clearly set by the city before the start regarding what is selected.

that the OP can now go to their municipality with this and they will then change it?

I was not talking about a change, but merely about the equal treatment of individual applicants with joint applicants, who are required to plan together.

if the municipality now simply "may" quickly select a few companies to build with

No, the municipality is not supposed to do that. They should only a) be able to allocate the plots in such a targeted way that builders with the same contractors can be grouped into homogeneous rows and b) demand the same agreement on a joint contractor from individual applicants. Whom the applicants choose in this regard, the municipality does not need to make specifications – there are none for the joint applicants either.

As it is currently planned, there will be a development area with two classes of aesthetics: harmonious rows for the joint applicants and a mixed mess for the individual applicants. For custom builders, however, better plots for detached single-family houses are planned; in a 6m wind corridor, different rooflines also dissipate.

That possibility does not exist. He can only say "with X," then he can only be allocated a plot that lies between/next to other "with X" builders; or "with Y," in the same way; or "doesn’t matter" (that increases his chances of allocation and he has the surprise of whether it will be an X or Y block).


I didn’t mean that you should look for joint application partners in the newsletter. Rather, the mayor should write in: Call to individual applicants to report who they want to build with, so that the lottery can be supplemented with this information.

Your quote refers to a comment about what happens if someone wants an individual allocation. I interpret it so that the municipality should determine that only companies x and y can be selected. Or do you really think that out of dozens of construction companies, all homebuilders would "purely by chance" choose only two or three ?

Or do you really think that out of dozens of construction companies, "purely by chance," all home builders only choose two or three ?

No, besides X, Y, and Z there can also be A, B, C, and more. The municipality should not dictate anything about who to build with – except that each row house must reach an agreement. This should apply to both joint applicants and individual applicants.

So I’ll give another (terribly long!, but you can cut it out and chew on it until you digest it) example: Suppose there are 32 building plots in eight rows of four. For each row, one uniform builder (or at least planner) applies – the name doesn’t matter; whether "solid" or "prefab" also doesn’t matter; there just must be one shared one per row.

Out of countless bazillions of applicants, 32 are drawn. Group Willi (builds with Huber) four persons, a whole row. Group Günter was not drawn at all. Group Susanne (builds with Pfleiderer) three persons, one spot free. Five individual applicants said Dimpfelmoser, seven said Rossbauer, and thirteen – including you – wanted individual allocation and did not decide concretely, so they must join somewhere.

So now there is a Huber row for Group Willi, a Pfleiderer row, two Dimpfelmoser rows, and two Rossbauer rows. You can now agree with other individual applicants in one of the two "remaining" rows (to one of the aforementioned or another of your joint choice), or join the Dimpfelmoser builders (three spots free), the Rossbauer builders (one spot free), or Susanne’s Pfleiderer group (also one spot free).

Rossbauer is way too expensive anyway. In the Dimpfelmoser group is Frank, who pulled your hair back in school. Susanne is really nice, but the Pfleiderer building style is just not your thing (just like the cheap shacks from Häberle, which the three other individual applicants are aiming for).

That leaves (including you) five builders, of whom one still has to join the Häberle builders so that you can then gather the remaining three around you to find a joint architect. He plans for you together, but you all tender separately – no matter whether everything or if you take out DIY trades.

So you see: 1) You don’t have to build with Häberle or Pfleiderer. 2) The municipality has not specified the name of a builder. 3) But it would be smarter to ask for a determination from everyone – not just the joint applicants – before the lottery. 4) Then you might have suffered the fate of many other applicants (including the whole Group Günter) not to be drawn at all; but you would have saved yourself the long way to group consensus.

The actual question was "Whether there are any laws/principles regarding the independent construction of terraced houses?"

What do you mean by that? I understand your sentence "However, the community has not engaged any developers for construction, but you have to build the houses on your own." to mean that you now believe you have to manage the house construction entirely by yourself.

So what exactly does the question above refer to?

[*] Laws in the sense of "I am building a house"?
[*] Laws in the sense of "I am planning a house"?

I understand your sentence "However, the municipality did not engage a developer for the construction, but the houses must then be built independently." to mean that you now believe you have to manage the house construction completely on your own.

With a developer, a group of houses would be planned together from one and the same mind – this coordination individual builders still have to work out for themselves (if they consider it necessary – I strongly advise it, but there are contrary opinions).

The actual question was "Whether there are any laws/principles for the independent construction of row houses?" What do you mean by that?

The original poster presumably wants to know whether, if I build first, my house profile becomes binding for him. That is, whether he then does not have to comply with a particular eaves height up to 7.50 m and building depth up to 12 m, but exactly my 7.38 m height at 11.87 m depth – along with my dormers covered with 26° pitched roofs; just so that our row of houses, even if planned individually, will look "seamless." Or at least whether I can mess up a pitched roof house for him if I come in first with my stepped-storey construction application.

The answer is "no": there is no provision in building law like "the first one is the determiner"; however, one probably has to piece together a specific outline of only an implied harmony requirement from case law.