I received new proposals today.
First, the original draft slightly reduced. The issue with the statics remains. Below are three visualizations of how the statics could be solved in the design. The pillars could also be executed in a round form. So far, I can only say for sure that the partition wall is not liked at all. We would have to consider the others to see whether one or the other would be a compromise....
Basically, the reduction only brings slight budget advantages. The kitchen and the pantry (actually now just an airlock) are now more comfortably sized, and the ratio of kitchen/workroom fits better. I think the workroom being one square meter larger than desired can be neglected. I also find the WC/wardrobe solution better than before. We are now at 220m² for the ground floor and upper floor.
Upstairs, I also find the slightly reduced rooms okay—except for the utility room, which has now been reduced for the second time from originally 4.9m² to 5.64m². From the room program perspective, this is the biggest issue I see there.... How do you see this and the other changes inside and outside?
Unfortunately, many dimension details are missing again.
For completeness, I am also posting a completely new draft proposal regarding the exterior design with an even more reduced room program. But the design does not work from the outside at all. For a moment, I really wondered how something like this can come about after speaking so long and intensively and the other design was so well liked. Here we are at 213m² for ground floor and upper floor but have a larger utility room with 6.76m². Children's rooms are somewhat smaller. That is still acceptable. The entire upper floor is okay overall. The smaller kitchen downstairs is already borderline with the cooking island, isn't it? The workroom is just still manageable if you close both eyes—actually, it is too small for me. And there is no longer a wardrobe. Very many restrictions for 7m² less—and that with an unappealing exterior.
So we are not much further than last time. The static challenges remain. Not even in the new design can you do without supporting beams. So we can now take one of the two "adjusted" designs. The utility room would still need to be clarified. And you would just have to live with the oversized roof terrace. They write it but they can't get rid of it. By establishing a partial basement, another 30m² could be saved in the basement. However, I do not yet have a quantification of savings for this.
They also write that the new design is cheaper due to the construction method. But that doesn't help us if it isn't liked.
Take a look at the two different approaches in the ground floor plan of how the situation next to the pantry is solved.
I will now calmly consider how to proceed. I tend to ask exactly which changes would be necessary to do without the supporting beam. It mainly revolves around that. Otherwise, live with one of the three static solutions?
