Correct execution of thermal separation house/garage

So, here I am again - and, as suspected, I support the revision of the plans. However, you are welcome to still show the attic and the gable sides.

The "Lichtfluter" are probably (extra Slim Line) light shafts?

I’ll list in telegram style (mixed positive/negative) what caught my attention: the exterior walls that do not align will entail a rabbit’s tail of additional structural costs # the kitchen in the main apartment is hardly suitable for a family, its size is more like that of a granny flat pantry # the orange frames presumably indicate downpipe positions (which, however, are not continued in the basement) # I don’t understand the second front door leading to the bed-shaking / smoker’s balcony on the garage # I don’t understand the wall construction of 38 cm including ETICS on one side in the basement and 34.5 (?! ) cm monolithic on the other side in the ground floor # at least the interior walls were differentiated down to drywall walls, albeit incomprehensibly, also in the sizing # very commendable is also the discipline regarding the variety of window sizes # however, a vanishingly small minority of the measurements are comprehensible, the measurements almost completely deviate from the octameter system.

Conclusion: apparently, a layman has really tried to learn something - but also evaluated the saying about masters not falling from the sky. So, merit badge - but it still needs another round. At least, the level of how many things here would work or how little is dimensioned completely cluelessly deviates vastly from the usual layman plans seen here. But that is not yet equivalent to being ready for submission or close to it.

My wife said that the other opening direction would be more comfortable for right-handed people like us to operate, which makes sense to me. We are still "pondering" that.

It’s not uniform after all, the doors themselves are each to be opened from different sides.

According to the drawing, it is like this:


And this is how I would do it:


The paths in red indicate the routes you would have from the kitchen when you want to take things to the grill or chill on the terrace. As you can see, in your planned option 1, the path is always quite far around the table, no matter which door.

Switching the opening wings makes the paths somewhat more direct.

: thanks, your reasoning makes sense. As I said, we still wanted to make a final decision on this. It also depends on the fact that we most likely cannot afford the intended HSTs, because besides the surcharge for the HSTs, according to the prefabricated house manufacturer, an upgrade of the wall thickness is also necessary, which would again drive the total price through the roof. We need to look each other deep in the eyes and decide whether we go for PSKs instead (which I find a bit silly as a system), or possibly even just simple doors to open. But anyway, in all variants we still have to think through the opening directions.

: thanks for reviewing & your thoughts on this. I have attached the upper floor, although we are moving further away from my original concern.

The skylights, at least the one in the granny flat bathroom, should actually be executed as skylights (System Knecht), but it seems that no one except Knecht offers something like this more or less in standard design, so we have to see if we want to build the basement with Knecht just for that (we are still waiting for an offer on that). If not Knecht, then we have to go with classic light shafts.

For better understanding: the ground floor & upper floor are a prefab house “off the shelf.” We can hardly change anything there – that’s just how the product line/series is, or you can upgrade it to an "individual" plan with freedom in planning, but then with a hefty additional cost. In return, we get a very affordable house – with corresponding compromises. The basement must be built by a third party because the house manufacturer does not have its own basement production – so we have free planning here, which we immediately used to integrate our desired granny flat.

This explains the different exterior walls: the ground floor & upper floor are built with a timber frame construction, total thickness 34.5 cm, which includes 12 cm EPS insulation – unfortunately this is not exactly shown in the plans. The basement/lower floor must be executed with at least 24 cm thick waterproof concrete in the parts in contact with the ground, plus the 14 cm XPS insulation that we need for the energy concept.

The kitchen size on the ground floor is definitely a disadvantage – if we were free in planning, I would certainly have enlarged it there, but I have to make compromises. The side door leading to the *herb garden* (nothing to do with a smoker’s balcony) is actually the "front door" in the floor plan of the prefab house manufacturer. We have “misused” it as garden access – from the garage ceiling, you can go out level to the garden behind the house.

The window sizes on the ground & upper floors are fixed, at least in width – why these exact dimensions, probably some kind of system deal between the house manufacturer and the window supplier, I suppose. To have a somewhat harmonious appearance, we have also adopted these sizes in the basement where it makes sense.

The orange pipes are actually downpipes, they are not shown in the basement because the basement might still need minor adjustments regarding the main issue – separation between garage and house.

So we are back where we started – I am still very interested if anyone has any feedback on the feasibility & meaningfulness of the intermediate insulation there.

Thanks!

Tell me, what are the manufacturer and model of the house called. Even a timber frame panel wall is not negligible in weight to the extent that it could be placed "unsupported" arbitrarily. We have only produced lift-and-slide and folding-slide doors, but I do not understand why parallel sliding-tilting should be lighter. By the way, I understand your initial question even less now, because the garage looks to me on the plan like an integral part of the Knecht cellar and is also included in the thermal envelope. So I see no reason for a separate base slab and no reason for a divide "between house and garage." Based on the heading, one might have expected a garage placed next to the house, but here it is integrated, almost half underneath.

Well, it is as follows: on my part, I do not want the garage insulated & included in the building’s thermal envelope, because at the beginning I assumed that a) the money for the insulation measures (perimeter insulation of walls, roof & base slab, highly insulated garage door, etc.) would be better invested in other things and b) we would not be able to meet the KFW 55 standard anyway, at least not if we do not additionally heat the garage space, which would be unfortunate both because of the (additional) money for heating and because of the later ongoing costs.

On the other hand, I want to connect it visually & functionally with the house, i.e. maintain direct access from the garage to the basement as well as walkability from the ground floor onto the garage roof.

For simplicity, the garage was shown in the thermal envelope in the planning – probably the architect hoped it would still "pass" energetically – but (as expected) after checking, the energy consultant raised a concern and said: no, it has to be separated.

I wanted to hear if someone has implemented something similar or if certain details make this solution seem impractical.

PS: Sorry for the direct link to the manufacturer's website regarding the floodlights, I probably overlooked that part of the forum rules. Mea culpa.

For simplicity, the garage was shown within the thermal envelope in the planning - probably the architect hoped it would still "pass" energetically - but (as expected) after checking, the energy consultant raised a finger and said: no, it must be separated.

Then just let him calculate the garage with a heating loop as a formality