Floor plan, house layout EFW 150m2, basement + granny flat - feedback desired

The ground floor apartments are all 35-50m2. Everything beyond that is comfort.

So that means everything under 35-50sqm is not comfort... LOL

I also got a little shock.

Somehow I feel a bit bullied with my old program. (Joke) Besides, I like country house style even though I hardly dislike any styles as long as they fit the surroundings.

However, I find the approach with the granny flat location interesting, but personally I would probably be a bit too stingy with the property there.

The difference in placement compared to the original design isn’t that huge either. Should be about 3 meters.

The granny flat should be built in such a way that the 70-year-old person can live there even with physical limitations. This is not the case with a basement, steps, and a small bedroom. Being fit may already be over by the time of move-in.

Then it is more like 50 sqm than 35 and not luxury.

Just by the way, is it mentioned anywhere what material the shell construction will be made of? I'm just wondering how anyone still ends up with 30 cm exterior walls these days. It must be timber framing, right?

First of all, a Happy New Year to you all. You don’t even let the forum rest on New Year’s Eve (Careful: this is meant positively).

Yvonne somehow gave me the idea with her view from #45.
[ATTACH

89573[/ATTACH]

That looks very interesting. Thank you for the effort! I was thinking along similar lines yesterday as well. May I ask what program you/you all use for drawing?

I hope the OP doesn’t immediately complain that he doesn’t like a crippled hip roof or that the windows aren’t nice enough.

He doesn’t. He has learned that this is a sketch. Besides, I mean what I say about gratitude.

I would activate the reserve in the roof if the city allows it. I am no longer quite sure about the heights. The illustration shows the 45° standard with a 2m knee wall in the upper floor.

This is the street layout. We can reduce the knee wall to a “justifiable” height where the slopes won’t bother us in everyday life. Heights must be adjusted to the reference buildings.

The core of the idea is the arrangement of the granny flat on the east as an annex at a freely selectable height level.

Would that mean

[*]either the house itself must be lower (entrance at the same level)
[*]or only the granny flat lower, as the entrance is on the side, carport/parking with a slight slope and thus +/- 20cm/1m gradient or just 1-2 steps
[*]we don’t need a split level

There it is really shrunk down to dwarf size.

What interests me here: have you now inspected all possible houses with granny flats? Or do you just want to believe what you are told?

We currently live in a housing project with inclusion. Old, young, people who are dependent on support. > 30 housing units.
The “oldies” couples, with two exceptions, live downsized in 2.5 rooms + balcony. The “oldies” singles have 1.5 rooms with a living-sleeping area, interior bathroom, kitchen, and a small garden. The care-dependent parties are all singles and have 2 rooms. All <= 50m2.
We know the floor plans. We know the pros and cons. But we also know that everyone can live very well with their respective compromises, for more than 5 years.
In our environment, everyone knows someone with a granny flat. In single-family houses, they are all in the basement/souterrain. There is one exception where the ground floor is shared and the family also uses the upper floor. The sample is not very large, no question. But it is far from just theory.

So that means everything under 35-50 sqm is no comfort... LOL

I think you are interpreting it wrong. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Or in other words, just because A is true, B does not automatically have to be false. It is also no use putting words in my mouth. That won’t get us anywhere.

We reviewed several floor plans from prefab house providers again. Except for the bedroom, everything goes in the direction of our draft +/- 5m2. Of course, that does not mean we have to build that way. Of course, it should be livable. At the same time, it must remain feasible.

In other threads with slope/granny flat, there was, in my opinion, often rightfully the remark that the older generation catches the early worm and therefore profits from the NE with a little more S.

You live in an apartment? You often lounge on the sofa and enjoy the sun on it?

Currently a ground floor apartment open on three sides NE-SW with garden. Bathroom on the north side with daylight strip. That is why we can absolutely understand everything you write. In summer, no one stays in the living room, but in spring, autumn, and winter you are more often in the living room during the day and enjoy the brightness. Therefore, we would not limit the open-plan living area to SO, no matter how we finally arrange kitchen/living room. We also have some experience with NE gardens and at our current life stage are not fans of them. I’d rather have the problem of the south side and solve that than have no/too little light as a problem.

You get too entangled in your argumentation too often.

Sure, I can’t rule that out. I only try to share all thoughts and get from you an extension of perspective reflected back. But one thing is becoming clear to me: we will have to compromise one way or another.

The granny flat should be built so that a 70-year-old person can also live there with physical limitations. That is not given with basement, steps, sleeping chamber. Being fit may already have been over by the move-in.

Then it is rather 50 sqm than 35 and no luxury

That sums it up well.

Just by the way, is there anywhere stated what material the shell will be? I just wonder how one still comes to 30 cm exterior walls today. It must be timber frame, right?

Yes, timber frame is planned. The general contractors in the selection range between 27-40 cm. The architect gave us “his favorite” wall construction.

Basement
Again to the anti-basement faction. You all prefer to create living space above ground for storage purposes instead of a basement? Utility room and technical stuff aside. Bicycles, equipment, supplies, and other stuff must also be accommodated somewhere. So far, we have assumed:

[*]Above ground = 3k / m2.
[*]Basement = 1k / m2 +
[LIST]
[*]8,800€ (excavation) + 14,080€ (disposal for soil class 4) + 2,400€ (drainage) + 6,000€ (additional insulation) = 31,280€
[*]plus staircase = 8k
[*]thus 1.5k / m2

Space requirements:
Technical room for LWW (air-to-water heat pump), photovoltaics, granny flat, ventilation, smart home: 10m2
Utility room: 5m2
Miscellaneous: 15m2
Total: 30m2

Above ground:

[*]min approx. 2000 EUR / m2 = 60k
[*]average approx. 3000 EUR / m2 = 90k
[*]max approx. 3400 EUR / m2 = 102k

Our soil class is 4, silt. That means the ground probably has to be compacted on a slab.

Basement: 30m2 * 1.5k = 45k.
Are we overlooking anything?

Are we overlooking something?

But you have to be well rested for the calculation. You are on New Year's Day. Problematic with QNG, calculating differently. I would not divide the cost issue into above-ground/below-ground, but rather into “living space quality” and “basement quality” (surface mounted pipes, unheated, etc.), i.e. the finishing quality. Then there is the difference between a normally insulated basement outside the thermal envelope and a basement inside it. The 3000€/sqm living space doesn’t apply with QNG anyway, everything is getting more expensive. Still, let's take the 3000€, not based on evidence. Honestly, I would also use that for the basement/lower ground floor, because in this case it has to be fully inside the thermal envelope and contributes to the certification. You might save a bit on the two utility rooms, but only a few coins, nothing worth mentioning. It is comparable to an above-ground utility room. Do you actually have to take out a separate loan for the tax depreciation?