House construction from concrete vs Energy Saving Ordinance 2016

This concrete look - I still don’t understand how that is supposed to be achieved with Liapor SL stones? It still has to be plastered, right? Or am I seeing it wrong and the stone itself doesn’t actually give me a concrete look

Exactly, you’re misunderstanding (or rather you understand correctly, but two things, and you see them as one). I was talking about two alternatives. The Liapor SL (mind you: the SL, meaning with classic joints, not the SL plan) would allow a visible masonry, which you would then have to deliberately plan that way, which in turn requires a lot of attention to detail, especially with this building material. So the surface would be a wall, and in texture, in my opinion, close to pumice.

You prefer a poured look. That you don’t mean the classic concrete with the wall surface “uniform slightly acid gray, with the groove pattern of the formwork boards” has already been clarified. Your “concrete” is a lightweight concrete with a speckled coloration that goes in the direction of “terrazzo.”

An almost identical look could be achieved as a plaster layer. That’s why I proposed,

a) either using a completely different building material (such as aerated concrete, which at a more civilian wall thickness can meet Kfw55), and on both sides have the plaster imitate the appearance of the desired surface, or

b) as a variant of this, to execute the load-bearing masonry shell in aerated concrete or similar and have the plaster on the inside create the look, and on the outside use lightweight concrete as a facing layer.

With both variants, you would have an adequate appearance without the drawback of the massive concrete, which in my opinion requires an almost indecent wall thickness (which, as recently explained, gives the house the appearance of a bulletproof fortress - basically the castle wall fitting the presidential limousine).

Hm.... Do we misunderstand each other? Why don't I want a concrete look? On page 1 with the two examples.... Neither of them is in the terrazzo look, right? The first one is liapor but to me it also looks like normal concrete up close.

Hm.... Are we misunderstanding each other? Why don’t I want a concrete look?

Yes, but not the form with the board-marked imprint that I first associated with it. Then I googled and found pictures with a terrazzo-like surface.

On page 1 with the two examples.... Neither of them is in the terrazzo look, right? The first is Liapor but also looks like normal concrete to me up close.

Correct, it wasn’t so clear to me in the pictures. The "texture-dense" variant that you probably have in mind, I found for example in Liapor News 2/2012, pp. 10 to 13 (residential house Haigerloch / Werner family). An alternative with a somewhat rougher surface, but probably overall a better ratio of thickness to thermal transmittance value, would be for example in Liapor News 1/2007, also pp. 10 to 13, "House concept Living X as a basis."

This variant as well (smooth and consistently nearly uniform color tone) can be imitated with plaster if, like me, you want to avoid increased wall thickness.

How do you come to the conclusion that he doesn't actually want what he shows and says he wants on the pictures? The thing with the liapor was only said by his architect, he probably misunderstood him as well.

Ok so to clear up all uncertainties.
My architect said realization with LIapor (lightweight concrete / with expanded clay components) 50cm walls will not work according to the energy saving ordinance.
Possible would be reinforced concrete with external polystyrene insulation – but that would take away the concrete facade outside from us.
The pictures shown on page 2 (More about picture 1 can be found by googling (HAUS T KPT Architekten) and the 2nd is found in BR Traumhäuser – for us these represent examples of the desired LOOK!
How this can be achieved is now the question.

That is the fact so far, we have not progressed further – but at the next appointment I want to have variants/solutions ready myself so that I can also talk reasonably with the architect and he can possibly check feasibility/costs based on the proposals. I don’t want to have everything served to me ready-made by the architect and then it doesn’t fit again and again – though I also have to say that our architect sees us as bosses and not like many other architects who actually only want to realize their own vision. (we have already had a change of architect....) Therefore, the motto is SAVE TIME – we are in a bit of a hurry!

As far as the building is concerned, I can say that it is a cubic building on a slope with a double garage – the building basically has a ground floor/basement and an upper floor, so 2 stories. Ground floor/basement here is basically partly a basement which is in the slope and the rest is usable. Size including corridors is currently about 175m² (living area). The parts that are in the slope are basically only 3 rooms.

As for the building, I can say so far that it is a cubic building on a slope with a double garage - the building basically has a ground floor/basement and an upper floor, so 2 stories. The ground floor/basement is practically partly a cellar embedded in the slope and the rest is usable. Size including corridors is currently about 175m² (i.e. living space). The parts embedded in the slope are basically only 3 rooms

If you already know it will be 175 sqm and three rooms in the slope, that sounds like a relatively advanced sketch or even a preliminary design. Just post that here, then there will be something tangible to consider how best to proceed.

represent examples for us of the desired LOOK! How this can be achieved is now the question.

Exactly, that's how I interpreted it: You primarily want a house that looks like concrete because you liked examples of that appearance; you are not fixed on the constructive building material. And an architect already says that with 50 cm Liapor this would not comply with the 2016 energy-saving regulation. I can well imagine that because the examples were from 2005 to 2012, so even before the 2014 energy-saving regulation. It won't be the manufacturer’s fault, since he already has several mixtures in the program; if the desired result can’t be achieved with 50 cm using this material, then it doesn’t work with this building material. That means: with this material but thicker; or with something else.

Therefore my suggestion is either to completely separate construction and appearance; or to use the desired appearance material as a facing shell on the outside and only work on the inside with an imitated look and different construction material. That works quite well – also in such a way that the fake is only uncovered by the surface being less cold.