11ant
2022-09-04 15:11:27
- #1
..that is indeed correct; I am speechless in two respects. 1. Because of the great response and 2. Because of the criticism of our floor plan. [...]
we thought that 2 seniors, who are almost 70, would not need much more space. [...] The youngest son of my parents (so my brother :)) studies somewhat farther away from his parents and often comes home and sometimes stays for a few days or weeks with his parents. So that he has his peace, and the parents have peace from him, we planned the room on the upper floor with a shower bathroom.
By the way, if the main (permanent) guest of the seniors is Claudia-Marlen’s brother, it might be wise to plan a shared guest room with access to both parts of the house (in the way the utility room is arranged on the ground floor).
I have long since stopped being speechless about the bad habit of requesting feedback here under a new username while concealing one’s previous planning history – that is apparently “the new era” :-(
What I do find unbelievably brazen, even after sixteen years as a seventy-year-old myself, is the notion that seniors could have sufficient space in a holiday apartment just waiting in the rocking chair for the Boanlkramer. In our case, this might even apply as a winter quarter for laundry changing and TÜV inspection of the motorhome, but my beloved’s children are also not disoriented students. However, we would be happy about grandchildren with a “g” :-)
To be honest, I am very disappointed that despite months of planning with our architect, we apparently have not achieved the optimum. The current status of the building project is that we have already received the building permit and are now waiting for a date to start construction from the construction company.
No, that’s precisely the problem (and a consequence of taking the wrong turn at the very beginning, where the switches for the concept should have been set properly). The botched result did not arise despite, but because of the long “planning.” And it was not “the optimum” that was achieved, but rather the pressure increased under which the too many wishes were forced into the financial and structural framework. I believe I have already at least tried to imply to in her earlier life as that too many wishes/requirements per square meter can only lead to cramped labyrinths. The “result” shows – as pointed out by several experienced residents of functioning houses – that a symbolic proof of furnishability can only “succeed” with dollhouse furniture.
But theoretically, we could still submit a change request.
No, a patch here certainly will not suffice; the wrecking ball must be used. Be glad that a bare approval causes significantly fewer demolition costs than if the fat fire wall from the large apartment building were already real in the middle of the house! – I can only warmly and sincerely join the recommendation
I also urgently recommend you pull the ripcord before you sink your money into something like this. Once it is built, the money is lost and you will only be able to sell it far below price.
It would be a shame, especially considering the fuss and bother back then regarding the optimal lot selection, to now build such a highly compressed money pit on top of it. Value creation by compression only really works with diamonds. I’m always amazed how much effort some builders invest in making themselves unhappy. : with the merger of “futsch durch Pfusch” into “pfutsch,” you absolutely hit my taste in wordplay :)
It would be nice to know the exact dimensions of the plot. Then one could redraw it and experiment a bit.
Since – shame on my rusty photographic memory – is unfortunately fully right, the information necessary for your planning is easily found right here as well: