Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

The 2% help with the snow lakes. It drains off by itself a bit and the rest is swept out faster. Snow lakes are normal for us in winter, with the robber probably more the exception.

So, the plan (via PN I have a bit more than the excerpts in the threads) says: the garage floor has no slope,

I just spoke with the site manager; he said a slope was implemented. I would then have that checked by an expert. Regarding the question of the garage door height, he wrote:

"the garage doors were executed correctly according to the plans.

The rear garage door was constructed with a large rib, the same as the side door, as agreed upon in the contract.

The front garage door is executed and ordered as 'Motiv Großlamelle.'

Since the front garage door is contractually agreed as a large lamella, these lamellas are larger than the rear ones, hence these differences in measurements.

Therefore, everything was executed correctly according to the contract."


In other words, the builder is supposed to infer for himself that different lamella designs result in different door heights and it is not deemed necessary to point this out. Especially since the rear door was intended solely to allow passage for mini excavators, etc. What motivation would anyone have to install a lower door here?

Especially since the rear gate was intended solely to allow passage with mini excavators etc.

I also wondered how the mini excavator is supposed to change its height while passing through the garage. Your "height" certainly doesn’t change; you are the same size in the garage as in the house, so the height of the door surprises me. Why there should be different cladding at the back than at the front, I don’t understand. That different cladding results in different heights, when - a design shadow side of wider slats - integer elements are to be used, may be too obvious for the expert to consider the layman. With your technical construction knowledge, an original design was an unfavorable basis and logically caused complications. But at least you will like the result better than the house that stood there before, or what Jupp Schmitz & Son would have had in the catalog.

Why there should be a different cladding at the back than at the front, I do not understand.

At first, the louver look was also planned at the front as at the back. Presumably, this gate would then also be equally tall. But we wanted the look of the large smooth louvers at the front, while we refrained from this design at the back for cost reasons. It is unthinkable if we now had the main gate at the front as low as well.

The issue isn’t pressing now; but I will have it checked and documented during the next expert visit.

With your technical knowledge, a self-design was an unfavorable basis and has understandably caused complications.

That’s probably true. But 1,000 times better this way than the Jupp Schmitz & Sohn house.

In our project, unfortunately, there is a lack of proper advice and a guardian from start to finish, who keeps an eye on such things and at least points them out. That is a pity. I don’t even believe this is ill will but simply ignorance and lack of customer orientation.

I don’t want to offend you, but I have a different opinion. With your idea of building, you would simply have been better off with an architect.

Even if you think that all the architects you consulted wouldn’t have been suitable, they would have had one thing in common that you don’t have now.
Namely an expert who is involved in the planning and works for you, NOT for the construction company.

In unserem Projekt fehlt halt leider von vorne bis hinten eine ordentliche Beratung und ein Sachwalter, der solche Dinge im Auge behält und zumindest darauf hinweist. Das ist schade. Ich glaube nicht einmal, dass das böser Wille ist sondern einfach Unkenntnis und fehlende Kundenorientierung.

Because that is exactly part of the job of an independent architect...
Anyway. I think it’s good that you don’t let yourself be discouraged. Chin up. It’s just a stupid goal, there are truly worse things – for example, if water is still coming into the house...

I don’t want to offend you, but I rather have a different opinion on this.

We really see this differently. Even if the (independent) architect was basically commissioned by the general contractor, the scope of services is still the same, and he has to work accordingly prudently. I don’t see why such an architect shouldn’t have the same duties of care as an independent architect.

With your idea of building, you would have been better off with an architect.

I still have a different opinion. That would have been even more difficult for us, as it would have meant getting even more involved – also time-wise. Negotiating with every craftsman yourself... all that alongside a six-day week with 60 hours or more per week. But the main criterion was also that we didn’t find a convincing architect, as already explained.

Because that is exactly part of the task of an independent architect...

Not only of the independent one.

Anyway. I think it’s good that you don’t let yourself get discouraged. Chin up. It’s just a silly gate, there are definitely worse things – for example, if water still gets into the house...

You’re right. As I said, we can bring the gate issue up again with the expert and, if necessary, with the lawyer and put it on the table during the final acceptance if it can’t be resolved beforehand. I have little concern about that. I think I will certainly need the lawyer again anyway, because the general contractor assumes that the uneven exterior wall in the garden does not constitute a defect, and the expert sees it completely differently and says it cannot possibly be fixed by the exterior plaster.