House planning 135m2 in Austria

He gave good input on his part, which we will definitely take into account.

and? - should we bleed sterm,
or erzöistas?

So, we are back from the weekend and have accomplished quite a bit again. Trees and shrubs felled, cleared, compost filled, etc...

und ? - soll´n mer bleed sterm,
oder erzöistas ?

In short:

[*]Especially with such narrow plots, we should, in his opinion, first focus on the driveway / exterior design of the house. This sets the basic conditions for the house size / orientation and "the rooms can then somehow be arranged sensibly." So similar to what has already been recommended here in the forum.
[*]Since we are in a very windy area, we should carefully consider the issue of window shading. Due to the wind, venetian blinds are often not usable for shading so that they are not damaged. He even recommended classic shutters.
[*]If the groundwater is indeed as deep as suspected (>20m), then he advises a (of course with Ytong) masonry basement to save costs. However, we will definitely have soil samples taken before we commit to any experiments...
[*]For the roof shape, we would really like a detached shed roof. He said that, to his knowledge (though he admitted to having only managed one project with such a roof), this is only possible with a wooden beam structure and therefore very expensive. He would recommend a classic shed roof or flat roof, because according to him these are the cheapest options when considered "holistically" – that is, construction costs, maintenance, construction time, etc.

So we continue to deal with the outdoor areas, driveway, carport, terrace, etc. Sketches of the currently discussed ideas will follow soon.

And with that, I wish you a good start to the new week!

Best regards
the Gugelhupfe

Dachfrom would really like a detached monopitch roof for us. Here he said, to his knowledge (although he admitted to having only supervised one project with such a roof), it is only possible with a timber frame construction and therefore very expensive.

I can only guess what he might mean: namely, that it has to be constructed with rafters instead of trusses. In the spirit of Robert Lembke's "let's just say yes," I agree with him there.

He would advise us to go for a classic monopitch roof or flat roof, because according to him, these are the most affordable options when you consider it "holistically"

I'd rather say no. Single-surface monopitch roof relatively flat, yes, but flat roof cheap: no, if it is supposed to be watertight, rather not.

I can only guess what he means: namely, that it should be constructed with rafters instead of beams. In the sense of Robert Lembke's "let's just say yes," I agree with him there

Specifically, in this case he meant the "vertical part" between the two halves of the roof, that this cannot be made from brick / Ytong solid material but rather this part must be built as a wooden construction together with the roof. He said that otherwise the roof rafters would protrude into the masonry, which would not work because of the different thermal expansion. Therefore, the wall above can only be made of wood as well.

Specifically, in this case he meant the "vertical part" between the two halves of the roof, that this cannot be made from brick / solid Ytong but that this part must be constructed as a wooden structure together with the roof.

I also have not yet found a "correct technical term" for the "ridge front"

And yes, if its base is not a purlin on a wall, one will probably have to design it as part of the roof structure - but possibly it can also be done as a truss construction. In my perception, the "offset shed roof" anyway belongs to the eighties, like aerobics complete with leg warmers

We were at the building authority at the municipality today and gathered some information that I don’t want to withhold from you.

[*]Groundwater on our property is at about 20-30m with very gravelly soil -> no water accumulation -> we are therefore considering constructing a masonry basement instead of sealed concrete
[*]Sewer is located in the street at about 2.3m depth, so a lifting station would be necessary in the basement for possible laundry rooms (but we don’t want that anyway)
[*]In the front building setback, a carport up to max. 3m height would be allowed
[*]In the side building setback, a carport, garage or “lesser” outbuilding (i.e. without function for the residential building, no heating room etc.) up to max. 3m height would be allowed

Attached are the 3 versions of the parking spaces that we are currently discussing:

1.) Parking spaces in the north:
Advantage: very space-saving, instead of a carport a garage could also be built
Disadvantage: very tight – especially if cars become wider in the future (SUVs) or considering that one might need more space to get in/out when older

2.) Parking spaces front & side:
Advantage: still relatively space-saving, yet plenty of space to get in/out, parking space 2 in the south doesn’t take sunlight away from the house because it is not covered
Disadvantage: parking space 1 may not be built as a garage, parking space 2 may but might block sunlight, possibly difficult to park in/out towards the carport (but we know people who solved it this way and it is not a problem there)

3.) Parking space in front:
Advantage: nice for getting in/out, actually no driveway gate needed
Disadvantage: no parking space may be built as a garage, takes the most space from the garden

We therefore tend to version 2 or 3...