Floor plan single-family house 1 full floor technology and daylight

That's how I thought it too, until the reason was given that the permissible eaves height of 4.20m would be exceeded with a higher room height in the upper floor.

No, the eaves height in #78 and #165 is identically 4.13m and is not affected by the wish to increase the attic room height by 10 cm. The attic ceiling and the "collar beams" as well as the main purlins would be raised linearly, while conversely the room height in the attic would be reduced.

So with my basic geometry, the eaves height depends on ridge height and roof pitch and not on the ceiling above the eaves. Have I misunderstood the definition of eaves height?

The eaves height here depends on the ground floor room height, the ground floor/attic ceiling height and the knee wall height; the ridge height would increase with the house depth at the same roof pitch. The eaves height is only minimally dependent on the roof pitch, as well as on the wall thickness in front of the base plates. But most likely the misunderstanding lies between you and the planner.

However, as I said: I don’t see this increase in the attic room height here justifying the effort of redesign considerations. Such Princess-Shiny86-changes only cause inconsistencies in document management, and afterwards the parts on site no longer fit together because masons and carpenters have worked according to different plans.

Besides, you chose a wall construction where it would have been better if the structural builder had already been involved.

How am I supposed to picture this practically? The first time a company is actively involved in the whole process is after the tender. I can’t just go to any structural builder beforehand and ask for help planning the wall construction and then kick them out again afterwards.

How am I supposed to imagine this in practice? The first time a company is actively involved in the whole thing is after the tender. I can't just go to any shell builder beforehand and ask for help planning the wall assembly and then pull out again.

That's exactly the problem when a planner can't decide whether to design monolithically and leave the builder arbitrarily selectable, or to focus on a specific "personal" wall assembly (which then leads to his preferred supplier). Both together, i.e. wall assembly "Architect Edition" and unlimited open tender, don't work well. If you go to a shell builder with a wall assembly recipe "Forelle Müllerin vegan & halal," whose standard/routine is a wall assembly recipe "Coq au Calvados," then you risk complications due to detail connections à la Surprise. And/or the architect (then definitely observe my formula "3 + 5 = 8"!) produces correspondingly more extensive detailed drawings and supervises construction more intensively. By the way, I have not yet clearly understood here which of the two masonry shells is supposed to be the "master" (and fit into the octameter grid). If the masons are supposed to "decide" that, then good luck!

Your answer relates to the concept, my question is about the practice. I understand what you describe as possible consequences. The architect and I know 3-4 shell builders in the immediate area who mostly build the described wall structure. I just don’t understand why I should only contact one of them to "help" with the approval planning, but without a commitment to build with them later, since I want to get and compare offers from the others later. Why would anyone do that? Or the help must be paid for separately. I did not intend to get offers from shell builders with a preference for monolithic or plastered wall construction. Fortunately, construction is still ongoing in the area, so you can almost watch some of them build live and see how smoothly it goes. Having a chat with the workers is worth its weight in gold.

The architect and I know 3-4 shell builders from the immediate area who mostly build the described wall structure.

But you will probably mistakenly lump the 43 to 48 cm double shells together. Still, good luck with that!

I just don’t understand why I should contact only one of them with the request to "help" during the approval planning, but without the commitment to build with them later, since I still want to get and compare offers from the others. Why should anyone do that? Or the help has to be paid for separately again.

I never spoke of approval planning either. I would have already tested at the starting point which candidates you are likely to build with – and then coordinated their wall structures with them. Of course, they should not coach the architect for free.

I did not intend to collect offers from shell builders with a preference for monolithic or plastered wall construction.

But only then can the shell builder still be left completely open. What is the reasoning behind exactly this special wall structure and regarding the master question, which masonry leaf should keep pace here?

Fortunately, construction is still ongoing in the area, so you can basically watch some of them build live and see how smoothly it goes. Having a chat with the workers is worth its weight in gold.

That’s right, that is highly recommended.

Ah, so practically sorting out the structural builders early in the process and selecting one for support, but without a commitment for construction. Then the tendering proceeds as normal. Exact details of the masonry have not been discussed so far; I only know from other buildings that the running bond is standard (offset by a quarter of the brick length).