11ant
2024-03-11 12:38:21
- #1
I like it. The higher steps (19.2 cm) would also be okay for us.
What becomes difficult first is going down, every quarter centimeter of step height counts (whether knee or hip).
The ground floor does not need to be accessible for disabled people and/or planned for a senile old age.
So far I had perceived the desired location differently – maybe the architect as well?
That was the architect’s idea.
I can’t even list all the points that make me think the architect is aiming for a name among design-oriented clients.
Let’s see what the architect says to the concerns and whether he can still convince us of his concept.
As I said, first of all, he should make his concept transparent at all.
We could build the carport on the south side directly by the street. But then we would always have to walk with kids and all from the carport to the house. And we would always look at the carport from the southeast. We have already thought this through mentally but it is currently the second choice.
My hierarchy is: the prime spot for the house, the secondary spot for the cars. Children who are driven to the front door will later want to be driven to the classroom door as well.
There are building limits in the development plan that require us to build quite centrally. At least 8 m distance to the north and at least 18 m to the south. Currently we plan with about 10 m to the north and 20 m to the south.
If a plot is actually as big as two building plots like here, a lot can be achieved with the magic word "infill development" at building authorities. The years of comfortable "emergency legislation" for new development plan drafts are over.