Floor plan discussion based on existing thread

Only less would be strange to me than to approach Bims with skepticism. This building material has always had a high market share here (and certainly also in the Ahr valley - what do you mean by water?)

Well, you can test that here in the forum:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/welchen-stein-habt-ihr-fuer-euer-haus-gewaehlt.45394/

hello 11ant, nice and reassuring for us to hear that. We actually felt a bit uncertain about the pumice stone. On the internet you indeed find very little and opinions that are >10 years old.

I don’t understand that – I am also on the internet, and my opinion (from personal experience) about pumice has lasted >50 years.

Can you specify your concerns about the design process a bit? Ultimately, the process was a several-hour appointment on site, which we basically liked.

Then the planner should be a little ashamed, and you should trust his acting skills less. I am truly not alone with my impression that this is a classic underriding of a (partially residential) basement under a standard design (which, however, was varied in some details with questionable sense). My concise assessment

Superficially, only two things stand out to me: the (thanks to the window distribution) three-family house south facade, and the bricked-up part under the basement stairs. Otherwise solid everyday cooking – but with considerable similarities to the propped-up catalog house, as the general contractor could also pull out from the drawer. For that, you wouldn’t need an architect without quotation marks ;-)

(as a reminder @ all: the design is there in posts #103/104) already emerged from the fact that I considered the design to be harmless and accordingly low-risk to implement unchanged due to the low deviation from the standard. Your mention of a planned extension of 37 cm gave me a brief scare. That again sounds like a rather innovation-shy approach and makes me shake my head in disbelief – and I sincerely hope that a lengthening in the ridge direction is really meant. There I had provided in post #64 a link to a thread by where it is about a similar hillside location. Otherwise, in terms of my personal consultation, it seems like you might be able to "inherit" a slot for an appointment that is latently reserved for :)

There I included a link in post #64 to a thread by , which deals with a similar slope.

But there it is already considerably steeper, especially near the street.

Here you are just barely within your 1 m rule. (1.2m)

I would build here without a basement. But that is not an option for the OP.

Then the planner should be a little ashamed, and you should trust his acting skills less. I am certainly not alone with my impression that this is the classic concealment of a (partly residential) basement under a standard design, (which, however, has been varied in some details with questionable judgment). My straightforward assessment

Hm ok, skepticism is certainly warranted. On the other hand, we already have a certain level of trust since acquaintances were very satisfied with the architect and the resulting house.
Certainly, the living rooms upstairs are more or less standard. For us, it then seemed sensible to at least move the study into the basement, since you still have two "nice, bright" rooms in the basement. A basement bar is just that, in the basement ;) Whether the basement is now a residential basement because of the study, I leave to others. At least, besides the living/dining area, there are other rooms facing the view with access to the garden that have a certain usage time, which we found good.
What do you see here as questionable variations?

(to remind @ all: the design is in posts #103/104) already arose from the fact that I considered the design harmless and correspondingly low-risk to be implemented unchanged due to its slight deviation from the standard. Your mention of a planned extension by 37 cm gave me a brief shock. That again sounds like a rather innovation-averse approach and makes me shake my head in disbelief – and I sincerely hope that it really means an extension in the ridge direction.

It should be mentioned here that there are two designs from two different architects. The original design with Architect A was not further pursued. Subsequently, there was the second design from Architect B, which is currently being revised and extended by 37 cm in the ridge direction. Mainly because of the narrow passage on the left and right of the master bed. From your point of view, not sensible? Why?

By the way, regarding my personal consultation, it looks like you might be able to "inherit" a time slot that was held open for @schmeissrein :)

I appreciate your valuable input and hope not to have to pay inheritance tax.

Here you are just short of your 1 m rule. (1.2 m)

I would build here without . But that is no option for the OP.

Just to be correct. For us, that would more or less be an emergency solution if the cost estimate "gets out of hand."

Many greetings and thanks to you all!

What do you see here as questionable variations?

Count them yourself:

The architect designed tall cabinets under the slope for you? Very doubtful. I would definitely ask to see the diploma.

If an architect fiddled with this, then he slept through his studies.

So, in summary:
- The presented draft is incomplete
- Costs not yet determined, but budget very limited for the size
- Still, you are talking about the final implementation of a draft that hasn’t been shown:

.

Then there was the second draft by architect B, which is currently being revised and will be extended by 37 cm in the ridge direction. Mainly because of the narrow passage left and right of the parent bed. Not sensible from your point of view? Why?

Okay in ridge direction if the other dimension remains untouched. Changes in the gable dimension would be bloody interventions.

It would be more or less an emergency solution for us if the cost estimate "gets out of hand."

Wrong! – First calculate, then draw!
Regarding a target basement, I have a differing opinion here with , and an optional basement would always be a luxury. In any case, it is botched work to remove a basement (if it includes needed rooms) from a plan afterward just because the architect prefers to draw rather than calculate. I still have latent doubts whether your architect would get the seal of approval " approved."

I appreciate your valuable input and hope not to have to pay inheritance tax.

The consultation slot is tax-free from inheritance tax, but limited: if you haven’t taken it up within a week, you’ll have to queue as a new client at the back (currently that makes a difference of eight places on the waiting list, which will grow further in May). So don’t dawdle, the paths are known to attentive readers.

Okay in ridge direction, if the other dimension remains untouched. Changes in the gable dimension would be drastic interventions.

Hello 11ant,

exactly, 37cm in ridge direction, the other dimensions remain untouched.

Wrong! – first calculate, then paint!
Regarding a required basement, I have a different opinion here with @hanghaus2023, and an optional basement would always be a luxury. In any case, it is botched work to remove a basement (if it contains needed rooms) from a plan afterwards just because the architect prefers painting to calculating. I still have latent doubts whether your architect would receive the quality seal "@Gerddieter approved".

I would like to point out that you do not have all the information from the architect here, but only my status. I will be optimistic and assume that (even if the architect has not yet delivered an "official" cost estimate) the architect, given the stated budget and the first draft, considers early on whether the basement is really possible and if not, reports early or changes the plan earlier.
So we do not know exactly when he calculates and when he paints.

if you have not acted within a week,

Right now I am wondering exactly what the "access" means...

Wishing everyone a nice weekend!