Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

We have not remeasured the lift-and-slide element, but there is a lot of height available there. Of course, we will still measure it; at the moment, the focus is on the patio doors to the roof terrace.

I will go there again tonight once everything is installed.

This is how it looked in the execution plan. Should I have assumed that I, as a 189 cm tall man, would have to duck there when passing through? Then indeed, it would have gone unnoticed by the numerous people who looked at it.

I am curious which DIN standard the expert will cite here.

Otherwise, it could be examined to what extent there is poor performance by the architect (who is also the general contractor) and whether a claim for defect rectification can be derived from this. I cannot plan such a passage for a tall man or at least not point out the related issue.

matte1987

That is annoying. Otherwise, I have absorbed so much here. Annoying that this slipped past me.

Thanks anyway.

Is this an excerpt from the work plan? I ask because there is quite a lot of color with filled hatching present. I’m not really familiar with it like that.

What counts first and foremost is the work planning you approved.

If it’s included like that, then it’s first assumed that they also built it correctly (bottom of lintel = 2.01m above raw floor).

Whether the specification is nonsense is another matter; I can’t say if the pre-check even violates a standard.
But even if you approve the plan with your release, it raises the question for me to what extent they can refer to that.
After all, this is no longer a matter of preference, but simply absolute nonsense. Even a 2.00m man should not have to duck his head nowadays.
What simply amazes me is how so many people (architects, their draftsman, you + your expert, foreman, supervisor, window maker) could just let this slip by.

I find this really terrible right now and I’m sorry for you.

Are you aware that although you increased the room height, you did not change the windows and doors?!?

The case is more complicated: we have discussed room heights here - definitely in favor of higher doors and windows. But then the building application intervened, stating that the neighboring buildings specify a lower story height. Then it was reduced - possibly pulling down the lintels as well (?)

We did not remeasure the lift-and-slide element

I only quoted that because I found a fairly clear statement about it in the contract text. Your picture in #475 clearly takes a position (although only for the dressing room, but the two doors next to it are otherwise the same): it is noted at the opening dimension that it refers to a 12.5 cm parapet height. Thus, the lintels should be at 213.5 cm above the raw floor. From that perspective, it would not be a comfortable measure, but I did not notice it with only 183 cm.

Tomorrow there will be an on-site appointment where the whole thing will be simulated with Styrofoam and I am supposed to try to step through it.

In the meantime, the expert has spoken with the GU and informed him that he assumes that the terrace doors from the roof terrace all count as escape doors and that he cannot execute them as such, because a greater height definitely needs to be achieved here. The GU could not make sense of this statement and has not taken a position on it for now. He will certainly check it.

This will now also be examined by an expert based on legal standards.

What a theater this is.

Oh man that sounds awful