KonstantinW
2020-12-08 12:58:49
- #1
Quite "self-confident" ;-) for someone who has a problem and is offered a solution. You are making a fallacy if you deduce from only one solution that there must be a nicer one among those not yet mentioned to you. (Unfortunately, that only applies to Cinderella).
I have experience here, for about forty years, not as extensive as Escroda - but enough to tell you quite confidently: in your case, the set of solutions contains exactly ONE element. If you now exclude this by definition / elimination "solutions that are not Wolpertingers do not count," then your solution set becomes an empty set.
You have an upper floor that is identical in external dimensions to the ground floor - so these areas are the same size. The only thing that enlarges your ground floor here is a patio - which, no matter whether its roof is screwed, glued, or welded to the house, does not become an enclosed space to be counted fully. To achieve your goal by means of this covered patio alone, it would have to enlarge the ground floor by two thirds - if your building envelope and floor area ratio allowed that, it would still be an expensive affair. You should not so "proudly" kick a simpler solution off the bed. Even Olivia Jones with mega heels and a hat or tower hairstyle does not necessarily need headroom throughout the attic to the extent of a two sixty room height. But please - keep dreaming. Nevertheless, I remain curious about the genius solution you want to present to us later - many readers will be happy about it in advance.
As I said, it is a solution, but not the one we want.
I have a handful of solutions that the architect named to me, and reducing the knee wall is definitely at the very bottom.