Is the construction of the basement wall or floor okay like this?

A no-go is the ceiling height of 2.36 m.

Nonsense. I have 14 cm more, my uncle in BaWü only 2 cm more, and I never felt too close to the ceiling at his place. Le Corbusier even considered 10 cm less to be optimal.

Nonsense. I am 14 cm taller,

Then you also have a standard ceiling height.

Oh, what I forgot or overlooked: on the left side you have a rather interesting solution drawn in – it seems to be some kind of "double wall" planned, with the insulation executed as "core insulation." I assume there are (structural?) reasons for such a solution, but as depicted, it will be difficult to make everything free of thermal bridges. Check whether the outer layer can be separated structurally from the foundation so that your "main floor slab" can be insulated all around.

As it is now, it is portrayed like a cooling fin from the floor slab to the soil with a bonus connection all the way to the outside air.

Then you also have a usual ceiling height.

That does not matter. The fact is: I personally do not need the 14 cm that make my rooms higher. I would not want my window lintels to be any lower, but the roller shutter boxes could, if necessary, be constructed differently.

wow, first of all, thank you very much for all the responses! I didn't expect so much feedback in such a short time!

The roof can be done like that. Whether the 28 cm rafters are statically necessary cannot be said like this. That seems like a lot to me. Why is the support span on the ground floor so large? A 30 cm beam layer is quite expensive. That can be done much cheaper with something like this. A no-go is the ceiling height of 2.36 m.

I should have mentioned that we have the beams exposed both in the intermediate ceiling and in the roof and look at the wood from below. So on the ground floor, the gypsum board, counter battens, and battens are omitted. So that adds 9.25 cm up to the beams and then another 30 cm up to the ceiling. So on the ground floor, we would have a ceiling height of 247.25 cm or 277.25 cm (unless I am mistaken about the orientation of the beams and battens).

For that, screed will still be laid on the upper floor, which of course reduces the ceiling height there, but that is taken into account with the slopes.

For the roof, there will also be an external roof insulation under the green roof. Intermediate ceiling and roof will then look like in the attached pictures.

Whether the beams are statically required, I will inquire again. Why the architect has not yet planned the final ceilings from the prefab house manufacturer (Fullwood) in the draft, I cannot say. But I will follow up on that.

According to the text description, 6 cm of "pressure-resistant insulation" should come under the slab. So at first not so problematic, however the thickness is ridiculous - a minimum of 14 cm should be planned there (depending on the energy ambitions, considerably more). I hope the note "clean concrete" between slab and insulation is a typo - it has to be under the insulation.

I will ask again, but it could be a typo. I also sent it to the shell constructor for the basement and asked for his opinion.

Make sure that also the ends of the slab are properly insulated; according to the drawing they are currently not insulated (although the slab is shown very strangely) - i.e. the insulation must lie against the ends, and then on top (possibly wedge-shaped) connect to the wall insulation.

The architect said that because of the kimm stones (insulated stones, shown as insulating stones in the drawing) there would be no problems regarding thermal bridges, but an external floor insulation would also be possible. Personally, I would also prefer that. So if the whole basement is completely surrounded by insulation.

For that, the PUR insulation above the slab could be made somewhat thinner (e.g. 60 mm, if installations allow this) - this way 4 cm of room height could be gained. I also find 12 cm of wall insulation quite sporty - more would be better.

The insulation above the slab would probably be omitted if the whole basement is insulated from the outside, right?

Why do you build the ground floor so much above the original terrain height, especially since it is sloped down on both sides?

The groundwater on the property is not that deep. I wanted to be as high as possible so that our basement is not permanently in water. Also, the terrain on the rear side of the house is higher, so our terrace is practically at ground level.

All the more regrettable that you haven’t involved us more, since your concept has apparently changed significantly since ... and now only regarding one problem point, instead of showing the whole house :-(

There were some problems, which had little to do with our planning but rather with the incompetence of the previous architect and stubborn employees of the municipality. I will post again soon and present the new plans and

Nonsense. I have 14 cm more, my uncle in Baden-Württemberg only 2 cm more, and I never felt too close to the ceiling there. Le Corbusier even considered 10 cm less optimal.

We have higher ceiling drops as written, that is still wrong in the plan.

Oh, what I forgot or overlooked: on the left side of the plan you have a rather interesting solution drawn - seems to be some kind of "double wall" planned, the insulation is done as "core insulation" there. I assume there are (structural?) reasons for such a solution, but as shown, it will be difficult to achieve a completely thermal bridge-free execution. Check if the outer shell cannot be constructed separately from the foundation so that your "main slab" can be insulated all around. As it is now, it looks like a cooling fin from the slab to the ground with a bonus connection to the outside air.

Could you please explain that a bit more precisely? I do not exactly understand what you mean. Is it about the basement wall or the house wall?

I will ask again, but it could be a typo. However, I also sent this to the shell builder for the basement and asked for his opinion. <...>
The architect said that due to the kimm stones (insulated stones, in the drawing insulating stones) there would be no problems regarding thermal bridges, but an external floor insulation would also be possible. Personally, I would prefer that as well. So, if the whole basement is completely surrounded by insulation.

The iso stones help a bit, but if the floor slab protrudes (as indicated in the drawing), you still have a significant thermal bridge (distance * perimeter of the floor plan, that adds up). If I were you, I would insist on having the insulation also shown correctly in the drawings – the basement builder might think along and still execute it correctly, but it’s possible he might not...

In the attachment I indicated where I see the missing spots.

The insulation above the floor slab would probably be omitted if the whole basement is insulated from the outside, right?

Rather no. It depends on whether you plan a floor heating for the basement area or not. If yes, then you have, for example, connection lines to the heating circuit manifold, which have to run beneath the screed (or under the heating pipes) (or alternatively exposed, but hardly anyone wants that). The same applies to all other supply lines (water, ventilation, possibly electric), which are often laid directly on the floor slab. You can determine where the lines possibly cross and how thick they (are) there, and accordingly choose your insulation layer height the same – then they disappear nicely in the insulation layer. The insulation also has an impact sound insulation function, although this is not so important for basements.

Alternatively, there is the option to implement a so-called concrete core activation, where the “floor heating” is laid directly in your floor slab (also known as a “Swedish slab”). Then you can save both the (internal) insulation and the screed – the floor slab itself is smoothed so that you can lay your floor covering on it. A prerequisite for this is a thicker external insulation under the floor slab to naturally keep the heat inside (for passive houses at least 20 cm of XPS). And it only really makes sense if you want to heat with a heat pump, because especially then such a concrete core activation allows for lower supply temperatures, which is optimal for heat pumps (especially if cooling in summer is also intended). But you have to plan this very early because the pipes have to be laid in the steel reinforcement (and all other supply lines) – it has to be well thought out.

Could you please explain that a bit more precisely? I don’t exactly understand what you mean. Is it about the basement wall or the house wall?

I tried to mark in attachment image no. 2 what I mean – it’s about the basement wall on the left, where actually 2 shells are shown (outer shell 19 cm concrete block, then insulation 12 cm in between, and then again 19 cm concrete block inner shell). Without having a continuous thermal separation there, (simplified) the heat will “flow out” under the iso stones and be released over the entire surface of the outer shell to the soil & outside air. The insulation shown in between will not or hardly help.

Whether it is really separable that simply I don’t know, since we don’t know why this construction was chosen or is necessary.