Kfw300 can still be worthwhile if you are fast. The rest is rather uninteresting. NRW.Bank also has interesting funding programs, but sometimes with 3-6 months processing time for us.The question was actually whether there is currently any meaningful funding for it? Weren't the funding programs mostly cut at some point or was the amount rather tiny compared to the expenses? Or is it still worth it?
Oh really? Did you commission them yourself? That's a bit disappointing, isn't it?
From which release version you wanted to keep the ground floor, I still find unanswered, but I will not ask a third time.
Presumably I considered that ...And I had replied every time that the upper floor should remain as is, not the ground floor. It was supposed to be different from all previous drafts. Where is the misunderstanding?
a typo, because it is precisely the upper floor that has undergone so many changes that it must be perceived as the one meant by the modification measure, whereas the ground floor rather at least resembles the one from the original draft. So I rephrase my question: from which release version was the retained floor supposed to come?So here is the latest draft. Actually, we had said to leave the upper floor as before, but okay. As for the ground floor, I’m not quite sure.
P.S.: Unfortunately, I do not know exactly which funding program, but I read today in the Grüne that applicants are told that a presumably already depleted funding pool is available.Kfw300 can still be worthwhile if you act quickly. The rest is rather uninteresting. Nrw.Bank also has interesting funding programs, but sometimes with a 3-6 month processing time with us.
I still find unanswered from which release version you wanted to keep the EG, but I will not ask a third time. For a glare-free monitor, a venetian blind is sufficient; the office does not have to be shaded from the sun.
You (and the planner) still seem not to have understood what preliminary design and design mean. A preliminary design is not made once per round or extra round but just once in a whole house planning, in one, two, or three variants. Exactly one of these is chosen to be further developed, and all the others are immediately and forever discarded into the planning office’s clinical waste. All change discussions take place on that one preliminary design, and that in a meeting with no back-and-forth, preferably over weeks, but always in dialogue (talking against each other) and not in pingpong (alternating talk), certainly not multiple times. And all of this before one SINGLE design is made from the preliminary design (singular!). From then on, there are no further designs, only corrections. You can find the design seminar on “Bauen jetzt,” including “A House Construction Schedule, also for You: the HOAI Phase Model!” Of course, you can do it differently if you have too much money/time/nerves (or want to let a “planner” play around and learn something). *
One should still do performance phases 5 to 7 with the architect after approval—but to make sense, obviously, not commit beforehand to a general contractor (neither in general nor to a specific one).
Katja probably meant that only the general contractor knows the “secret” of which “wall structure” (whose thickness is relevant here) he has planned for the roof.
Moreover, I question the facing shell for the garage structure; I would have planned it only for the house and clad the garage with slips.
Free architect, really? — I can’t believe it. That’s sign servant planning quality. Too bad. Hopefully at least significantly below the table! (or even Stage IV because of facing bricks?)
*) In the specific case, however, I would deviate from the described procedure as follows:
1. throw away previous designs, no longer use them as a basis for any improvements
2. declare a successful design (for example, Katja’s from release version post #86) the new and only valid preliminary design; only this one should be further developed.
The trash can as a document management tool is greatly underestimated!