Floor plan 200m² single-family house, raised ground floor, existing plot, double garage

  • Erstellt am 2025-02-06 23:45:27

ypg

2025-03-07 11:36:46
  • #1
For interior walls without structural requirements, 11.5 is normal in a plan. If fine-tuning happens later and one decides to make a room a panic room with extra thick walls, adjustments can still be made.
 

K a t j a

2025-03-07 13:07:36
  • #2

Such nonsense. At Steiners, 40 cm exterior walls are standard (36.5 + plaster). If these are thinner, insulation usually needs to be added, so you end up at 40 again. If they are thicker, the house must be bigger on the outside, not on the inside. The price difference between the brick thicknesses exists, but as far as I know, it is rather negligible compared to the total amount.
 

11ant

2025-03-07 15:20:13
  • #3
The free choice here is only limited: aerated concrete monolithic caliber 365 works for the Building Energy Act / EH55, for EH40 caliber 425 is probably required. You lose about two-point-seven / two-point-eight percent of living space with caliber 425 compared to caliber 365 at the same dimensions, so it does add up. That is roughly one eighth of the area inefficiency caused by amateur planning (regardless of whether it comes from the architect). A bad architect costs (indirectly through a (without any gain in living quality!) higher building volume) more than the full (both halves!) fee according to the schedule of a good architect. Conclusion: omitting an architect or choosing a less talented one is, in political marketing talk, "negative saving"! Depending on what the architect has taken (probably meaning what he is under the influence of), he might have compared prices per piece from the end-consumer hardware store flyer, which indeed looks more "dramatic."
 

K a t j a

2025-03-07 17:54:38
  • #4
You can’t make the house smaller inside just because of the bricks. Since when has that been a thing? You would only have to do that if the building plot were used up down to the millimeter. But that doesn’t matter here at all. Not without reason, the payable area is based on the "interior square meters". Anything else would be new to me.
 

11ant

2025-03-07 20:40:29
  • #5
The point of view is not mine, and I agree with you: But for the principle "the wall thickness affects the ratio of footprint to living area," it doesn't matter, because this "suffers" when the walls get thicker. Of course, I would also rather add the wall thickness "outside," if only so that the ceiling panels and their spans do not need to be recalculated. Town & Country has done it the same way as far as I know when they went from 24 to 30 cm standard wall thickness. Precisely because it makes more sense. But builders usually calculate the other way around: building window minus fortress walls equals the space available for living. From a technician's perspective, it is different: with an existing house design, it is better to keep the exterior wall - interior edge and let the house grow outward with the thicker walls; with a newly created house design, it is better that the outside edge of the exterior wall is congruent with the octameter grid.
 

ypg

2025-03-07 21:31:39
  • #6

.. and that is compensated anyway without podium stairs and gigantic pantry.

That usually doesn't play a role anywhere, since a defined floor area ratio also allows some percent of overbuilding.
And, as far as I remember, there are only approximate values of the property here.
 

Similar topics
11.03.2018Optimization of Angle Bungalow 108 by Town & Country21

Oben