Whether "ecological" and "timber construction" are identical, an inseparable double tone, or even a contradiction, this philosophical dispute could fill volumes and last longer than planning and building a house from the first sketch to the last roof tile. As a construction method-neutral building consultant with four decades of residential planning experience, I point out that houses are built from materials and not from ideologies (can be).
Currently, forestry is not sustainable alone because too many eco-bio-world-saving vegans mistakenly believe that an ecologically valuable house is characterized by the highest possible wood content in the wall structure, exerting a plundering suction regarding prime wood on the timber market – as a result, too much wood is harvested for forests to still be managed sustainably. A worryingly high and further growing share of construction timber should, in fact, be called "blood wood" by the consistent do-gooder.
I therefore urgently advise moderation and de-ideologization. More meaningful things can be done with real recycling (not shredded downcycling), e.g. reused roof tiles, than freshly cutting down trees and wanting to use all sorts of materials just because their woke "cement-free" certificate says so. Making walls out of boulders mortared with duckweed may look like the solution to the world’s problems depending on what one smoked beforehand, but it is not. Moderately planned, a house by the ecologically non-political local builder is not the devil either.
It is certainly correct that there are better ways to build ecologically. Primarily, we like wood as a material, and admittedly I have probably adopted the term "ecological timber construction" from a brochure of a house building company. Under the maxim ecology, much is probably to be questioned.
I prefer to point it out once too often than have a building application rejected because of it.
Thanks :)
Three mistakes in one post: (1) Offers are not comparable just because floor plans are similar. Floor plans alone are also not a usable basis for obtaining offers. Also read my posts with the keywords dough resting and setting the course. (2) I primarily recommend considering facades as design features and not necessarily tying them to having to specify the construction as well. (3) Compromises are very bad. The final house gains nothing from the fact that its planning might have originally worked one or two sizes bigger. And simply removing the boarding from a house designed with timber cladding is also not the right way.
Of course, I do not make an offer based on just one floor plan, but on a whole catalog of requirements and services. That I list the facade here as well is only due to the fact that, in addition to the 10 sqm, it is the second change to the original offer.
I will study your posts.
I suspect the floor coverings (cork / tiles)? – regarding owner-built work?
Note: "expansion house plus" is better than "turnkey minus."
Exactly, floor coverings. The whole topic of owner-built work is not quite clear yet because we have little time and have not yet calculated whether it is worth our time or even necessary.
The 11ant basement rule might already recommend a living basement. And it lends emphasis to the ridge direction proposal. How exactly does the development plan define "three full floors"?
Thanks for the hint.
"III Number of full floors as a maximum limit
Garages and outbuildings must generally be built single-storey.
If the original terrain slopes more than 1.50 m at the building, measured along the slope line, a building is to be constructed in hillside construction with basement + ground floor."