House arrangement including or excluding garage on a sloped property

That is probably not asked for here either.

What do you mean by that? Can you explain the disadvantages you mentioned?

Hello and thanks for the feedback,

I would like to gather a few pros and cons to make my decision. Would you accept the depth of the house, especially on the terrace side, in order to have the garage integrated? Or is it more sensible to separate the garage from the house and then create a connection? This would then have stairs and be only covered. Or maybe someone has another idea.

Disadvantages regarding drainage, daylight, and aesthetics

What disadvantages do you mean regarding drainage, daylight, and aesthetics? I would slope the sides at the edge of the property so that the house gets a level all around, exactly that of the garage. The slopes are less than a meter, as far as I can see?! You can then plant them at the edge of the property on 150cm width. And the garden part, I would make it ascend terraced towards the back, but not immediately at the terrace itself. First a level at terrace height, then one or two platforms, the last one with trees and bushes. Apparently, the property goes a bit further back. Therefore, I would take the height of the garage and set the house equally high accordingly. This also has the advantage that you don't have three steps at the entrance area and no tripping threshold between the house and the wardrobe/technical room. Whether you are right with wooden frame construction on a slope and drainage, I don't know. But I'm not an expert either; I have rather specialized in floor plans.

I see the components "house" and "garage" here as easily separable, but for terrain reasons I wouldn’t even think of going for a timber frame panel builder. What probably gives him cold feet in the figurative sense is the technical requirement that the base frame is recommended to be 15 cm above terrain, which is hardly feasible here. You are at the wrong address with a timber builder, but he doesn’t want to send you away – not least because you have fallen for the fairy tale of the precisely predictable final price of the "finished" house. You probably got an architect who " warns" (floor plan sketch artist with a mandate scope from service phases 1 to 4). They are indeed a dangerous breed – especially if you use the building application drawings to fish for contractors. Then – but only then – your fears about spiraling costs are actually justified. You would have been better off with an architect for both halves (service phases 1 to 8). This mistake is now hardly fixable without paying almost as much tuition money as feared. The most elegant way to get the project out of the mud now is to switch to a fixed-price general contractor for masonry construction. This could be a case for a freelance building consultant like me – mind you, only like me, because someone like me is currently out of the question due to a full waiting list. In this case, I unfortunately cannot name you a colleague either. A little coaching for the search on your own we could still discuss, but nothing more will be possible before the vacation.

I summarize:
1. Your problem does not lie in the construction method, but in the fixed price.
2. The problem with the timber frame general contractor lies in the terrain, for which he is the wrong provider due to the construction method.
3. The problem is solvable by returning to the only correct construction method here,
4. but without individual awarding.
5. You cannot go back to where you took the wrong turn and where I could have helped you excellently,
because that would be exchanging the devil for Beelzebub.
6. Apart from coaching for self-help, I cannot help you at the moment (specialist appointment calendar problem), nor can I recommend a specific colleague.
7. So you have to find a fixed-price general contractor yourself.

That would certainly be a good option. Tell him that ;)

I'm late. Was at the cinema. The 11ant beat me to it.

Hello and thank you very much for the feedback,

I had an appointment today with a regional construction company that could carry out the earthworks as well as the foundation slab. The conclusion from them is also not to separate the house from the garage and that it is better to lower the terrace behind the house and thus keep everything at the same level. The height difference to the left and right is not a problem and can also be adjusted.

Regarding Post Architekt vs. Fertiganbieter, I can say that our architect is still supporting us. The tip to talk to a prefab provider came from him, and that's how it came about. He is still advising us.

Thank you for your input so far.

What disadvantages do you mean regarding drainage, daylight, and appearance? I would slope the sides at the edge of the property so that the house gets one level all around, exactly that of the garage. The slopes are less than a meter, as far as I can see?! You can then plant on the edge of the property on a 150cm wide strip. And as for the garden part, I would let it rise terraced towards the back, but not right next to the terrace itself. First one level at terrace height, then one or two platforms, the last one with trees and bushes. Apparently, the property extends a bit further to the back. In that respect, I would take the height of the garage and set the house accordingly at the same height. This also has the advantage that there are no 3 steps at the entrance area and no tripping threshold between the house and the cloakroom/technical room. Whether you are right with the timber frame construction on a slope and drainage, I don't know. But I am not an expert; I have rather specialized in floor plans.

Just as you wrote, this was also confirmed to me by the floor slab / railing builder. Many thanks for the constructive feedback!