Floor plan draft for a 220m² single-family house

What does "crawl space" mean in this case? - A standing height of 180 or 140 cm already makes quite a difference; under the annex one can afford more space. I wouldn't unnecessarily discard a foundation and all house penetrations.

Demolishing a basement also costs money. Where a basement has been constructed as a crawl space, groundwater reasons are often not far off.

I would worry less about load-bearing walls in this context because they primarily apply to the current ground floor ceiling, which does not necessarily remain. As mentioned, I can also imagine preserving the basement without necessarily preserving the house. Possibly nothing would remain above the top of the basement ceiling, at least not above the eaves height.

Keep in mind that demolition effort causes idle costs, i.e., you pay money without increasing the residential value of the new building. From a financing point of view, it also does not increase the loan value – essentially these are acquisition costs, thankfully not taxed additionally.

What the existing structure is worth others might see differently. If you can give the other discussants a more precise and vivid idea than the current photos, I could imagine new impulses from that. Including potential savings, mind you.

My thoughts are based on the following assumptions: intact building fabric of basement and ground floor (walls) – intact house penetrations and drainage situation – energetically outdated roof in need of renewal (but irrelevant due to adding a story) – presumably oil heating, single-pane wooden windows, and sand-colored sanitary fixtures with moss-green tiles – today’s outdated few electrical and telephone outlets – central ceiling lamps, etc.

Stairwell openings can be closed, so a basement dictates less than one might think at first glance.

What does "crawl space" mean in this case?

Something like this.

That is about 1/4 of the basement. In front of it is a concrete block about 1.20m high and roughly 2.50m deep, which basically stands in the middle of the room in front of the crawl space.

Unfortunately, I have no way to upload pictures of all that. But according to all the experts we had there, the entire structure is unusable. There is even asbestos partially installed that needs to be removed.

The demolition was offered for €22,000. That doesn’t sound so high to me that I would have to desperately try to hold on to the existing structure.

We are now taking the weekend to reconsider everything. We still really like the original design and still suspect that something reasonable can be done with the necessary adjustments. After all, the design was not badly received by other users here at the time. The points mentioned regarding offsets are certainly an issue. The room layout and exterior appearance wouldn’t be a problem for us. We could handle that. We really like the idea of the kitchen on the right and we also like the upper floor very much in terms of the room layout.

We had requested a special architecture from the architect that deviates from many similar, adjacent houses in new development areas. We said we are willing to spend more money for that.

On the other hand, we absolutely do not like the Bauhaus-style alternative that was presented to us. Huge bulky walls which don’t look any better to us even with colored accents.

One more remark on:

With a new architect, I wouldn’t have tried to reuse the previous design but started anew.

The "new" architect took over the project. His task is to adjust the external architect’s design if necessary so that the general contractor can build the house. That is his job for now. And since we judged the external architect’s design as "fits" and said "calculate that," that’s what is being worked with... that we then didn’t like the initially obvious need for changes because we had adjusted ourselves 1 to 1 to the other design, that’s one thing. But to dismiss the entire design immediately after one conversation without first looking for solutions?

Sure, if necessary, they will also plan something entirely new. But I don’t see that point yet and I don’t see that it would necessarily be better.

I think we will have it planned in detail again now, corrected, and calculated, and then we still have a professional building consultant / expert we can have take a look at the construction-related points.

If it really comes to pass that the structural engineer finds a solution with invisible steel beams, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Why not?

It still looks botched to me. I didn’t expect that it could be topped (with the columns).

I had asked to show alternatives to the sketched beams. I myself wouldn’t want to install the columns either, but it is okay that they are shown for the sake of completeness.

The poor kid living above the front door is being visually squeezed into an oppressively small room through the Cinemascope panoramic window in terms of depth dimension.

We noticed that too, but we will deal with the windows later after consultation.

And: Not everything that looks great and representative from the outside brings quality of living inside.

We like the current room program almost perfectly. The situation of a separate balcony vs. a huge roof terrace would be the biggest limitation or still to be solved issue— and the beams, provided that the structural engineer does not come to a positive solution here. The terrace situation also needs to be revised because the terrace makes more sense next to the dining area under the new conditions; you could even work with glass wrapping around the corner there. The rear appearance would have to be completely revised anyway.

Regarding the topic "design messed up further," I took a close look again at the exterior looks and find the following disturbing. I’ll post two photos... once a subtle thin line between the beam above the guest bathroom and once suddenly a big block... as it initially looked subtly, it fit, but afterward rather not so well anymore.

Also, I think the approved design proposal (which I attached again) worked so well because it had the appropriate width of the house. Through the shrinking, the effect has been lost. Especially since the windows no longer fit and the bay window becomes too dominant.

Now we have a room program that we like but not the right exterior shell for it. With this premise, we will probably have to get back into conversation. Coming up with solutions for that would then be the architect’s task. Ideally then without a bay window. If that goes away, the hipped roof solution becomes interesting again.

I would try to detach myself from the great pictures. We did not receive a single 3D image from our architect, yet we knew beforehand how it would be based on his HANDZEICHNUNGEN.

The demolition was offered for €22,000. To me, that doesn’t sound so high that I would have to desperately try to hold on to the existing building.

Demolition including disposal? - then take the offer. Your photo looks creepy, in the background I think there is a rubble stone wall, until now I had estimated the house as from the 1960s. So I have to withdraw my suggestion.

We still really like the original design and we still suspect that it’s possible to get something reasonable with the necessary adjustments.

No, part ways with this Imkreisdreh base. Your sketch design was much better, especially clearer, but above all: more buildable. THAT is, in my eyes, the truer original design.

The Bauhaus-style alternative shown to us, on the other hand, we absolutely don’t like. Huge clunky walls that don’t look any better to us even with color accents.

No, a white flat-roof house with gray areas next to the windows and ruby-red bay windows is not Bauhaus, that is Hornbach. Your favorite design with rubble stone leopard print is no less so, and the offsets are what’s clunky.

A “real” Bauhaus-style house manages with shadow edges that each only jump a quarter of a meter in one dimension. Here you create within each side view two handfuls of such profilings, several times even two within less than a meter distance, and the majority jump in three dimensions at once (and find a counterpart with different dimensions at the other end of an adjoining line). You will measure everything again on site in disbelief if the architect seriously builds you this overdose. On paper, it all looks so much more harmless. And of course, the thermal bridges, seals, and beams add up to be as expensive as a second basement.

His task is to possibly adapt the external architect’s design so that the general contractor can build the house.

The umpteenth patch leads to anything but clean code. This also applies to hardware like a house. I see his task rather as implementing your sketch. Upholding the botch work of his colleague is not his task, at least not leading to your goal.

Now we have a room program we like but not the matching exterior. With this premise, we will probably have another discussion. Developing solutions for this would then again be the architect’s task. Then ideally without bay windows. If that goes away, the hipped roof solution will also become interesting again.

Detach yourself from the (delusional) idea that with the rollback of the offset excesses the whole Bauhaus-style dream dies, and that the grief can only be drowned with a hipped roof.

I would try to detach myself from the great pictures.
We didn’t get a single 3D picture from our architect, nevertheless we knew beforehand from his HAND DRAWINGS how it would be.

Not despite, but because. This “3D” lies without blushing. It makes houses in the Minecraft style seem supposedly buildable. And always this radiant white, like you know it from the houses in the Greece vacation catalogs. But that only exists on the Mediterranean, not on the A4 :-(

I am inconsolable, I actually forgot something in my roundup:

If it really comes to that the structural engineer finds a solution with invisible steel beams, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, invisible steel beams only exist in fairy tales or from a Molwanian manufacturer.

I think he means rather to place the steel beams in tolerable dimensions at spots where they can transition into discreet suspended partial surfaces.