Floor plan - 135 sqm, 1.5 storeys, gable roof

Tendentially, one would place living areas, but also eating/cooking towards the south/west, but that is the street side, so the question is how is the building envelope on the plot. House somewhat further back, carport cleverly placed at the front, you could also do something nice there. Additionally, an east terrace.

That is not allowed at all. Somehow you seem to have lost a post... unfortunately, I am handicapped with a tablet when it comes to searching or linking. The street will probably be more NW, so everything facing the street must be designed equally and without any annexes, vestibules, terraces, bay windows, etc. That also means that an official terrace will not be allowed facing forward. But that is not a problem: SE garden with terrace, evening barbecue area in the SW... also windows there for the evening sun. The plot could be 24 x 26... with a 5-meter distance to the street everything fits... but that is just a guess...

I already mentioned that here:

Yes, but not that you are tied to the same BT with a contract. That is a different matter. Many of us were already close to the notary's door... multiple times... But/and every new plot meant: new development plan, new way of thinking. But it is just the way it is, that a builder got the information and only then started planning. There was never a GU or BT involved...

Here I already pointed out the issue of the area:

That is true. I found earlier that WNFL is actually written out as living usable floor area. Now I have the following issue:

[*]The contract now says: "approx. 135 sqm WNFL"
[*]In his area calculation, however, he goes back to net area - see excerpt

That means that the contractor actually equates WNFL with net area and not with living or usable area.

What is confusing is that you do not write, "we can afford a house of a total of 135 or 160 sqm," but you write something about what the BT has offered. It might also be the case that there are restrictions due to the floor space index. We do not know. It also seems that you rely somewhat on the BT; at least, that results from the information you do not have.

Anyway: why we ask so persistently. First, it is not good for any builder to rely on the BT. Second, ignorance is a bad contract partner. Third, , , and I are committed to designing a house with the specifications that is feasible both in price and development plan and fits the builders. Simply making the best out of it. Planning recklessly is not our thing, and the time for that is too precious.

I have already mentioned this here:



Here I have already pointed out the issue of the area:



And here:







That's correct. I found earlier that WNFL is actually spelled out as Wohnnutzfläche. Now I have the following issue:

[*]The contract now states: "approx. 135sqm WNFL"
[*]But in his area calculation he again assumes net area - see excerpt

That means the builder actually equates WNFL with net area and not with living area or usable area. And so the already mentioned problem regarding the area remains.

But as I said: many thanks for the tips and hints so far. I am happy to open a new post if it makes sense and becomes clearer.

How do you come up with a floor plan with 135sqm? According to the contract, it is 118sqm living area because of the sloping ceilings in the upper floor. Floor area, i.e. floor space, of course you have 135sqm. But the delta according to the guideline is no longer living area. In my case, due to the 2 full floors, net floor area is equal to living area. Gross floor area is without walls, as follows in the example of my ground floor:

- Living area 70.41sqm
- Net floor area 71.17sqm
- Gross floor area 90.75sqm = 8.25mx11m

The plot could be 24 x 26...

Correct, about 24x25.

But the fact is that a builder got the information and only then started planning. There was never a general contractor or property developer involved...

However, in this case that is true, since we did not find a plot for a long time and then found a property developer who offered to help us with the plot search as well.

What’s confusing is that you don’t write "we can afford a house of a total of 135 or 160 sqm," but instead you write something about what the property developer offered.

We have an offer for 135 sqm net area and based on that, we finalized the financing/the loan. 160 sqm, whether net or living area, is not an option.

How do you arrive at a floor plan with 135 sqm? According to the contract, it’s 118 sqm living area because of the sloping ceilings on the upper floor. The floor area, i.e. ground area, is of course 135 sqm. But the difference is according to the guideline no longer living area. In my case, due to two full floors, net floor area equals living area. Gross floor area is without walls, as follows in the example of my ground floor:

- Living area 70.41 sqm
- Net floor area 71.17 sqm
- Gross floor area 90.75 sqm = 8.25m x 11m

Correct, that’s exactly what I have been talking about the entire time. I have 135 sqm net area (i.e. ground area). With two full floors that corresponds to about 130 sqm living area – that was the original plan. Now I have to build 1.5 floors and will probably only have about 120 sqm living area.
However, I am paying for the net area and for financial reasons I cannot just increase it to get more living area. So if I increase the ground floor area to 90, the net/ground area of the upper floor will also be 90 – and that means 180 sqm net area, which I cannot afford.

I really don’t know how I could make this any clearer.

Correct, approximately 24x25.




However, this is the case here because we did not find a plot for a long time and then found a developer who offered to assist us with the search for a plot.



We have an offer for 135 sqm net area and after that we completed the financing/the loan. 160 sqm, whether net or living area, is not an option.




Right, that’s exactly what I’ve been talking about all along. I have 135 sqm net area (i.e. floor area). With two full floors, that corresponds to about 130 sqm living area – that was the original plan. Now I have to build 1.5 floors and will probably only have a living area of 120 sqm.
However, I pay for the net area and for financial reasons I simply cannot increase it to get more living space. So, if I increase the area on the ground floor to 90, then the net/floor area on the upper floor is also 90 – and thus I am at 180 sqm net area, which I cannot afford.

I really don’t know how I could make this any clearer.

Understood. I just wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. By the way... you are also paying for the gross area. But that doesn’t matter.

I’m curious about the ideas here. Your drawings, without wanting to judge, are already quite open on the ground floor.

But I doubt whether the dining table and the living room will work like that.

Right, that’s what I’ve been talking about the whole time. I have 135 sqm net area (i.e., floor area). With two full floors, that corresponds to approximately 130 sqm living area – that was the original plan.

First "Huh?" Is the net area including exterior walls or excluding them? If including, that doesn’t add up. Excluding is the strangest basis for calculation I’ve ever seen.

Now I have to build 1.5 floors and will probably only have a living area of 120 sqm. However, I am paying for the net area and for financial reasons I cannot simply increase that to get more living space. So if I increase the area on the ground floor to 90, the net/floor area on the upper floor is also 90 – which means I would have 180 sqm net area and I cannot afford that.

Second "Huh?" First, it is not necessarily the case that the floor area of the upper floor must match the floor area of the ground floor (see bay window). And second – how are you letting yourself get ripped off like that? Are you seriously going to pay the same money for 120 sqm living space as for 135 sqm? I’d make a fuss with the developer. Of course, he can’t demand the same price for a gable roof as for a two-story house just because the base plate is the same. Just the bricks alone are much less. Fewer windows, simpler roof... it adds up. Such a DIN standard sometimes does make sense. To achieve the same living area, the ground floor area for a gable roof will be larger. Normally somewhere close to the DIN standard. Exactly by how many cm now, he has to re-adjust to your budget. But definitely not zero!

Understood.

... I’ve already doubted myself.

I’m curious about the ideas here. Your drawings are already, without wanting to judge, nicely open on the ground floor.

Well, part of it is stolen from you – slightly rotated, mirrored, and furniture rearranged...

But I doubt whether the dining table and the living room will work like that.

I’m afraid so too. Maybe I need to get myself a smaller sofa.

First "huh"? Is the net area measured with or without exterior walls? If with, it doesn’t work out. Without is the strangest calculation basis I’ve ever seen.

Without. With exterior walls it’s the gross area. And that’s a fairly normal way of calculating area, as far as I can judge as a layman. From what I have read so far, it goes roughly like this:
- Gross is the total/floor area including exterior walls/construction area
- Net is the total/floor area excluding exterior walls/construction area
- Living area is the usable area, whereby areas with a height of less than one meter don’t count as living area. If the height is between one and two meters, the area counts as 50 percent of living area...

Second "huh"? First, it is not mandatory that the floor area of the upper floor must correspond to the floor area of the ground floor (see bay window).

No, it isn’t mandatory. Nobody said it was.

And secondly – how can you let yourselves be taken for a ride? Do you seriously want to pay the same money for 120 m² of living space as for 135 m²? I would cough at the developer. Of course he can’t charge the same amount for a gable roof as for a two-story house just because the foundation slab is the same. The bricks alone are much fewer. Fewer windows, simpler roof... it adds up. Such a DIN standard sometimes does make sense. To achieve the same living space, the ground floor area with a gable roof is larger. Normally somewhere close to the DIN standard. How many centimeters exactly he has to adjust to your budget. But certainly not zero!

Yes, that is the question whether he can do it like that or not... If I signed for 135 sqm living space, then I signed for 135 sqm living space. Now I can only argue about who interprets the abbreviation "WNFL" correctly.