Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

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

o.k., but then both gates would be too low. The mini excavators are 2.35 meters high. Unless you take a mini mini mini excavator without rollover protection, etc.

It can go better than with us; but it can also go significantly worse. And it can't be changed anymore anyway, it just has to be finished now.

I think your attitude is great and healthy.

A general contractor would be out for me if he is not willing to provide detailed plans beforehand for review (and approval!!!) to the client. Was that clear from the beginning?

Absolutely not, but would any layperson have asked for that at the start of the construction project? We’re always confirmed from all sides (architect, house builder, craftsmen) that we are super critical and well informed. But at the very beginning, I would never have thought that there are so many different plans and levels of detail and that you also have to explicitly demand them. In contract negotiations, everyone is customer-oriented to an extreme.

Would I do that any better today? If identical heights are stated in the building application, how on earth should I guess that the gates are then of different heights?

I would insist on the execution planning here. The truth is in there. In my opinion, the building application focuses more on the cube, but less on such details.

I wouldn’t even have a written confirmation that the screed is at the same height in all rooms?

That’s exactly how I see it, as a layperson you wouldn’t think about that unless you are a construction expert, teacher, lawyer, or come from a butcher family.

But then you have to coordinate the sectors and their cladding to these desired dimensions. The larger the span of this rhythm, the more awkward it looks to work with fragments.

Alternatively, you could also have worked with facings on the lintel of the gate.

or comes from a butcher family.

Dynasty, please. I am only the second generation non-master butcher. And in this project, the general contractor managed to hide pitfalls in details that even I had not thought of. Honestly, they should have said: dear customer, we will build everything for you in the full spectrum from "run-of-the-mill" to "run-of-the-mill five-star superior" (with hand-gilded light switch frames), but please nothing with unusual construction.

I think he didn't hide anything but simply lost track. Why should he get upset over such nonsense?

Could the reason for the different goal height be that the GU uses this more often and gets this dimension at a very good price? Something was mentioned about it being cheaper. Maybe he hoped no one would notice?

What is the clear height in the goal area? The door leaf does not quite go all the way to the top at the end.

I believe he didn’t hide anything but simply lost track.

I didn’t mean malicious hiding, but in the sense that at certain points I wouldn’t have suspected that one could still hide pitfalls in such details. Some of those were/are really impressive achievements. However, almost all of them belong in the same drawer: omitted detail drawings.

So I am not going to put up with this. This is, in contrast to the issue with the patio doors, a clear case as I see it. Although I think I could have gotten away with it with the patio doors as well. But then I would have risked a construction stop.