Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

The report will arrive tomorrow or on Monday. But I just briefly spoke with the expert on the phone.

It was about the allegedly necessary 200cm clearance height at the balcony door on the upper floor. He said one must not make a mistake there – it is not about the escape route out of the house, where the dimensions prescribed by the general contractor apply – no, he is now concerned with the reverse route. The escape route from the balcony into the stairwell. And there, 200cm applies, and he will formulate and legally justify it accordingly.

So there is still a glimmer of hope that they will have to redo the balcony doors. Since the entire front would then have to fit, I would also expect this to apply to all the windows there or even the entire floor. But I am not quite convinced of that yet.

Only, the DT is simply not a "public traffic area," as stated in Para. 5 of the State Building Code - and this only applies to access to the property, not to or from the house.

But let's wait for the reasoning.

If that has no substance, you are no longer allowed to commission the expert. There will be a bill for 500-600 euros and if nonsense comes out of it, then I won't do it anymore. The contractor is also sure that he did not make a mistake with the building insulation, as the expert says.

This is how the alternative execution planning of the terrace would look.

Head height without this change is 192 cm.

They now propose:
- Increase head height to 200 cm by using higher-quality insulation
- Gradually reduce 2% slope to 1% (this is a deviation from the DIN and must be confirmed in writing by me)
- Announced additional costs for the measure not yet quantified

They linked this to me.
DIN 18531

This is not meant to sound arrogant, I think like 90% of builders you didn't know any better: Everything that happens here is due to the fact that a proper architect and an execution plan were skipped. But why someone building such an expensive house doesn't even inform themselves about how planning is done, and what advantages and disadvantages the options bring, I don't quite understand.

So I'm only joining the thread now, no idea what happened before the disaster with the terrace doors...

But all this bashing here like: you should have done better... I don't find quite appropriate.

Building in metropolitan areas is just insanely expensive and even here in Bavaria we had the problem of finding any architect at all who would give us an appointment for a preliminary discussion within a year(!)....

For us, it was the other way around, we wanted the general contractor (GU). We did NOT want to read work plans 24/7, study everything ourselves, be responsible for EVERYTHING. Hats off to those who do that, but you first have to be mentally prepared to handle that besides work and maybe family with small children etc. etc...

When the parallel offer for the model: individual awarding and supervision with construction supervisor was almost 80,000 euros cheaper with higher-quality equipment, the plan with the GU was already drawn.

And what I generally don't get here: no one agreed to just draw any floor plans casually. We would have had to pay for design planning everywhere, and since that's expensive, I can't just do that with 3 providers and then simply pick the nicest floor plan.

We only got offers at all based on the plan from the GU’s architect, otherwise no one would have agreed to even any cost estimation.

When the plan was ready, the GU was just much more expensive and it became individual awarding with construction supervisor.

Yes, and now there are media breaks (the GU's architect only made the design plan, another architect then did the submission plan...) yes and that causes a bunch of problems.

Yes, afterwards you can always easily stand there and say: you should have... yes, I could have invested 80,000 more, but who says everything would have gone smoothly with the GU...

I've looked at our plans 20,000 times, you simply CANNOT see everything, maybe you find only 70% or if you give your all and do nothing else 90%... but there remains a rest.

That's why Hotzenplotz: no should haves... you did everything within your power. And craftsmen unfortunately don't always tell you everything, as you might wish as a layperson.

I also thought it would go like this: So if they change this and that now, they remind me that then I have xyz as a disadvantage...

No one tells you that, it is done when it doesn't cause any effort anymore and otherwise the easiest way is taken preferably...

Someone wanted to run a sanitary pipe through the outer wall for me... AS a layperson I can see myself that he was just messing me around and just taking the easiest way for him...

But with other things I just can't...

- Reduce the 2% slope stepwise to 1% (this deviates from the DIN and must be confirmed by me in writing)

The Flat Roof Guideline requires at least 2 slopes - for good reason.

In times of increasing heavy rain events, this point is delicate (and the desired exemption - but only after sufficient written clarification of the consequences by the planner / general contractor - is justified). One makes their property a guinea pig with this. It can go well, but it can also go wrong.

Consequences of 1% from my point of view:
- Water drains more slowly
- accumulates higher as a result (does the secondary drainage then still handle that?)
- coverings (tiles?) moss faster / possibly lime stains in summer; with wood, a standing mosquito pond threatens underneath...

It is also unclear where the slope is supposed to be formed (principle: away from the house). Where are the drains? It should also be checked beforehand whether there is already a counter slope in the existing structure.
(Glass marble test on a smooth floor...).

By the way:
The parapet cladding of the small knee wall on the right should also have a slope. The drawing does not indicate this yet.