First of all, a big thank you again for the many posts. Especially thanks to those of you who, in addition to brainpower, are now also investing time in drawings.
This will be the best. But then the architect should also tear up the old specifications, otherwise it won’t be a real relaunch. No specifications of an allegedly clever "jack of all trades" placement of height levels.
So far, we have only listed requirements and annotated them like a backlog with clear priorities for orientation in case decisions need to be made. That is (if anything) a requirements specification. What exactly do you mean by specifications?
And regarding the relaunch: We are the laypersons. What solution ultimately comes out is not dictated by us but by the architect. Otherwise, it’s always said that you should describe your wishes and ideas as well as possible. What was that about bathing and getting wet again?
If the parents-in-law’s house is too big, the individual parent should just form a shared flat with them. Then they don’t have to die in the correct order to free up the cellar hole one after another, whose "bedroom" is an alcove bed that is not senior-friendly even with a blossoming seventy. So the granny flat is not suitable for a senior themselves but only for the caregiver. Raising the granny flat 60 cm or so to peek out of this grave certainly didn’t save this botched planning. Better build an above-ground guest room where the three (in-law) parents can take turns escaping their shared flat for a grandchild week. As a suite with a bathroom, which will relieve the morning toilet bottleneck during the children’s teenage years.
No offense, but letting the individual parent move into a shared flat with the other parents, despite all the comedy, does not seem like a stroke of genius but rather a case of botched planning as well. The rest is so imaginatively written that I could only explain it by having had a little too much leftover mulled wine in my system. A guest room for people to escape from the shared flat as a suite. I like your humor, but I am not sure if you aren’t overshooting the mark here in future planning.
By the way, this botched planning comes from an architect with 20 years of experience and in our view reliable good references. We certainly didn’t do ourselves a favor by iterating it again and raising a finger beforehand. I don’t want to absolve myself here. With all your feedback—and presumably one of you is an architect—I would have also expected pushback from the architect and that before draft 1. To come back to comedy: Architects—isn’t that rather your guild, and we just get to finance it?
You caught that quite well. The retaining walls around the stairs and the terrace are considerably more expensive.
Can you quantify that? We definitely need to specify this more precisely in the calculation.
Raising the house upwards is hopefully off the table now. But it is definitely sensible if you solve it like the neighbors. But then also move the house further back like the neighbors.
Off the table and yet sensible?
For us, raising the house seems sensible in any case. Every cm of additional height brings us more light. With the historic tree population, that makes a difference. In addition, we protect ourselves against heavy rain events. And from the SE + SW side, we look into the distance. In addition, less excavation, more reuse in front, and less disposal. Why would that hopefully be off the table? What are we overlooking?
I myself once lived in such a basement apartment. After 3 months I could afford something better.
Our plot also has a slight slope. 1m on the property. You bring little light into the basement and see at most the grass cover.
Maybe our calculation is wrong, but just to be sure again about "at most seeing the grass cover."
[*]We have a gross floor height of -2.95.
[*]From -2.77 OKFB begins.
[*]Simplified, we gain 1m over the lot and are then at -1.77.
[*]Then we raise the house by 80 cm adapted to the surrounding heights. That makes -1 m. That would mean the grass cover would be at hip height.
[*]At 87.67 the plot begins. The house roughly at 87.50 to 87.25 and, the wider it gets, even at roughly 86.high. So we could probably achieve significantly less excavation, more reuse, and less disposal.
If we come from the variant without a basement, according to Katja’s opinion, we might need a split level. In her design, that is 4 steps = 80 cm. That is still a difference. Is it really that drastic? It might look something like this.
I have drawn a house with 12*12 m (suitable for a granny flat on the ground floor) into the plot. Compared to your space requirements, the house with 12*12 m fares better. The upper floor can certainly be smaller then. Or not, as you save the basement.
If I see it correctly, your proposal goes beyond the prescribed distance area to the neighbor. Nevertheless, we will take it along.
I’ll pick up from the previous floor plan.
Yes, the basement variant. The basement becomes the lower floor, exactly as I explained yesterday: slight adaptation to the edge of the plot to the east. There could be the multipurpose room of the main apartment.
On the ground floor is the entrance and the parent level (bedroom, bath, office and cold storage)
A huge thanks in advance to everyone who begins to draw here. I have no idea how much work this is. But it costs time and brainpower. That is not a matter of course.
If I interpret this correctly, the multipurpose room is now in the basement, where previously there was heavy criticism of the granny flat. Thus, the best SW side goes to bedroom and office. We don’t want that.
Without a split, it will be tricky to arrange at this size, I think.
Here is a first idea for the split variant:
The building volume is 15.5 x 10.5 here – but surely some centimeters can still be saved.
Again, thanks for virtually picking up the pencil.
At the dimensions 15.5 * 10.5 * 2 floors * 0.8 * 3400 EUR/m2 I come to 885k. At 3.2k/m2 it would be 833. That would be significantly over. I absolutely cannot estimate what the split level costs. Also, we would apparently need two roofs.
Visually, we do not like the design at all, unfortunately. You all have heavily criticized that the kitchen would not be on the terrace. That might still be changed here, but then you have to go through the living room every time with all purchases and for every little thing from the kitchen.
But basically, with this variant and the different heights as well as roof shapes, we might possibly take up the flat roof topic again. That would probably completely change the look.
However, I am still missing an answer to this question:
Because if the affected person does not even know their luck, which in their eyes may mean misfortune, then the consideration of the age-appropriate granny flat is basically over.
This is talked about continuously. Without these conversations, the granny flat would not even exist.