House construction from concrete vs Energy Saving Ordinance 2016

New @@11ant We want to achieve a surface like this as an example: Alternative also: br.de dream houses revisited A house on the mountain Inside it should also remain raw overall in combination with a lot of wood. How this ultimately happens doesn't really matter to us. We want to avoid a "boringly simple" plaster on the outside as much as possible – because it just looks boring – it should look different. House 1 corresponds to Kfw 70 standard – and since the Energy Saving Ordinance is not just about insulation but about a combination of insulation, heating, etc., we thought it would be feasible since we will probably have geothermal energy. This was written about in an article on Welt.de – it was presented as follows: Gas and oil are fossil fuels with a factor of 1.1 Heat pumps 0.4-0.6 and pellets 0.2. So anyone who installs a "bad" heating system here must insulate more... What about the sandwich method? Opinions? Topic whether this is allowed in the building area? I have no requirements for how my facade must be in the building area – so why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

How it ultimately happens wouldn't really matter to us.

That already sounds "doable," however ...

Inside it should also remain raw overall in combination with lots of wood.

... I believe you are overall thinking of an architecture in front of which cars with stars, propellers, cats, or horses belong for a harmonious overall picture and for which both spouses come from well-off families.

The proud architects of such designer houses like to say that the buildings were even inexpensive per cubic meter – compared to what you usually pay after Grünwald, maybe.

If you earn in the regions of statutory insured persons, I would benevolently consider whether "setting accents" instead of an "all-around designer house" might perhaps be sufficient.

A frequently underestimated characteristic of "clear architecture" is that it does not go well with small details. I don't want to say directly that you couldn’t wear a patterned tie in such a house – but with more than four magazines on the coffee table, it just doesn’t look quite so designed anymore. And: what do the little ones say if for aesthetic reasons there is no bear-shaped sausage allowed in the avant-garde house?

Apart from the fact that one can even get tired of clarity: because of the mentioned problematic correlation with small details, I would leave it out at least for the children’s rooms, and even for the study it really only fits the "clean desk." A house simply feels different when inhabited than when photographed.

Besides, I personally perceive the "effect" of certain materials as stronger when used less intensively – that is, as "accents," even stronger than "solid" / "monochrome."

We want no "plain simple" plaster outside as far as possible – because it simply looks boring – it should look different.

That seems to me a good "credo" – and as the "core" of the message to the designer – a good working motto. I would initially reduce it to that – it can always be expanded later if you do not see yourself in the result yet.

So in summary, you want to suggest to me that a concrete house is only feasible for high earners and that the interior simply appears monotonous and boring or sparse.
Therefore, "living" in it is hardly possible – is that a fair brief summary of your point?

Now, regarding prices... – the house in the BR report, which was very large, was built by two teachers, as far as I can remember, who were also quite young – in my opinion, they are not top earners. Well, you never know what capital is available...
In general, the house was not bare and "overstyled," as you might think – it is inhabited and also lively. (for us)

I cannot share the opinion that concrete = cold and uninhabitable....
We currently have a condominium and honestly, there is never anything lying around here – not even a single magazine – and we actually feel comfortable. Still?!
I actually only read CONTRA from you – how come? I think it is simply not your taste.

Taste is a matter of opinion, of course, and I gladly accept your remarks, but I would be more interested in the core question regarding feasibility / possibilities.

So, to sum up, you want to suggest to me that a concrete house is only feasible for high earners.

No – I just wanted to clearly point out that clear shapes / visually simple constructions do not go hand in hand with cheaper building, but on the contrary, the precision in the details of a practically "visibly exposed shell" costs money. Thus, a stylish house corresponds with more cream on the building savings account.

and that inside it simply appears monotonous and boring or sparse. Therefore, "living" in it is hardly possible – is that a correct summary from my side?

Not monotonous, but dominant in high dosage. Beton brut effectively dictates the omission of curtain rods and tends to bite off crocheted doilies. One should be aware of that, and like it.

I actually only read CONTRA from you – why is that? I think it’s simply not your taste.

That impression is misleading. Stylistically, you will find me with Botta, Böhm and Bienefeld, or also with Mies, Johnson or Meier, and especially with Olgiati (senior). And somewhat more classical with Neutra or Ruf. By the way, Wright did beautiful things that you could achieve with stones from the Liapor range.

however, I would be more interested in the core question regarding feasibility / possibilities.

Please, gladly. It is feasible, as you can see in your examples, which are current. 50 cm wall thickness or more consume a not insignificant amount of floor space. Hence my suggestion of aerated concrete or expanded clay, where you could (monolithically with plaster) save about 10 cm. If you find a capable craftsman who is plasterer, stucco worker and terrazzo maker, he can give you the same look with an energetically more favorable wall construction.

Regarding "sandwich," you would need to define more precisely what we should discuss there. In any case, for me "sandwich" always means bread on both sides, therefore WDVS (external thermal insulation composite system) does not qualify.

Good morning

It already looks great.
I can imagine that something like this made from precast concrete elements in a double-shell construction method is possible
and not necessarily significantly more expensive than KS and facing bricks.

I have 250m2 of ground slab as exposed concrete in our house and during the planning phase, since I would like to have some color, I had short-term contact with Heidelberger Beton.
Also, a precast concrete manufacturer in your region could be the right contact.

Olli

The impression is misleading. Stylistically, you’ll find me with Botta, Böhm and Bienefeld, or also with Mies, Johnson or Meier, and especially with Olgiati (senior). And somewhat more classical with Neutra or Ruf. By the way, Wright made beautiful things that you could achieve with stones from the Liapor range.

I'll tell you how it is .) I don’t know any of them I’m a philistine - I just want a house that we like .-) Until now, I had nothing to do with architecture.
Do you maybe have pictures of which Liapor stones you mean?

By sandwich construction I meant concrete outside, concrete inside, insulation in the middle.

The advantage of precast concrete parts would be that maybe a differently colored facade would be possible on the outside (or maybe not, that has to be decided)
The disadvantage is clearly the problem of prefabrication of all channels, switch boxes, etc.
Changes afterwards are then difficult to implement.


Yes, near us is HeidelbergCement, that would probably be the optimal contact point