Low ridge height results in a low knee wall

Why no bungalow with cathedral ceiling

: A question about your cross-section in post #16:

Why does the upper edge of the floor start at 55cm height relative to the terrain?
Generally asked: Why not have the floor level with the terrain height, or maybe even slightly below.
Then I see that the roof slope was applied over the 14m wide side. You gain more height if you rotate the roof by 90° and use the 10m side. I hope it was understandable what I mean.

First of all, I want to say that the architect, although already on vacation, quickly made me a cross-section in the evening. I find that more than committed! So the answer is: I cannot answer the question yet. I will wait for her vacation to be over and then ask.

Only in this way was I able to bring their first draft here for discussion. Equally important as the start of the upper edge is, in my opinion, the height of the ceilings or the insulation in the roof. The ceiling thicknesses shown in the section correspond to the measures of the FFH.

Basically, your question hits exactly where I already was with my Downing Street 10 example: Why does a house in the plain (valley of a stream) even have a step? So that no water runs in when it rains? That is a real question. In my humble opinion, 15 cm are enough, or less, or why not zero? Then the house would be accessible for wheelchair users both in and out.

Roof slope, and rotation, etc... I was also surprised that the section "is reversed." Because in my drawing above, at 2.70 m ground floor, a knee wall of 0.70 m could be possible. We’ll have to wait until she is back.

I understand that one wants it bright, spacious, not confining, and atmospheric, but why do you relate it to a number? Ceiling height? It’s the windows that make the difference!

In my opinion, you overlook that rooms are not ugly just because of the slopes or a small dormer. It may be that you want more higher storage space on the upper floor, but that does not simultaneously mean "ugly" or "unusable"!

That’s true. I saw that at HUF—they have small narrow windows at ceiling height in the kitchen... and suddenly the 2.50 or 2.60 ceiling height felt like 2.70.... The consultant was really right! Because I had spontaneously said 2.70.... A house is also a world of illusions...

Ugly is not the point, I’m not saying that, nor do I mean it. It must be clear what is "real" living space = usable space, and what is calculated added living space, like e.g. 50% of the terrace. For me, it’s just about clarity so I don’t make the object look nicer than it is.

The first consultant who saw the development plan roughly said that 230 sqm of "living space" would be the max possible! I thought: great, all good! Suppose I had bought the plot immediately based on that advice (panic purchases happen everywhere and always), what kind of Christmas would I have now? No, no, first the check, then the purchase.

What do you expect from the community here if you belittle what others have built?
Furthermore, the settlement house you posted is rather a modern house, which has the perfect shape of a very energy-efficient house. Unfortunately, a two-story house has much more negative external surface, which also applies to any knee wall height.
A settlement house is more like a red brick building with a roof pitch of > 45 degrees.

Do you want to say now that the Danhaus Engelsby is crouching or oppressive?
[ATTACH alt="35549681-5896-4691-A782-9C6D74659439.jpeg"]41251[/ATTACH]

Sorry, 1. I would and will never criticize anyone else for what they like and find beautiful, or can afford, or not.
2. Misunderstanding. I really find the Danhaus Engelsby very good and beautiful, especially the integrated bricks; it is the smallest in terms of sand-lime brick (I think) among the 25 houses, but (I still have to find out) it is definitely taller than 7.20.

If it turns out that even this small house is NOT allowed to be built, then I seriously wonder: What is the purpose of this development area anyway and who is it supposed to benefit? This question is to be addressed to the authorities and also to the developer.

To be honest, I don’t understand your reasoning a) to build with a basement b) to realize a lot of living space on the upper floor. Your idea of having a separate apartment upstairs was somewhat overlooked or not received here. I also don’t understand the motive. I really don’t see the apartment here, unless it is absolutely necessary (care staff or something), but then 60 sqm would be enough.

YPG, you have asked so many good questions that go deeply into personal matters. Basement: first of all, I assume that all the technical equipment belongs in the basement, and not in the so-called "living space." The utility room reduces the living area. Where is the laundry supposed to be dried, where should ironing be done, where should the freezer be placed, where should supplies be stored, where should my wine rack be located (surely not next to the heating?), I have 20 reasons for a basement. Please: I am not talking about costs here, but about the value of a basement.

Only when I know the value of a house do I consider and weigh the costs.

I'll put it this way: why don't you focus on a bungalow? A nice cozy house for the two of you... from what you say about your rental apartment, I'm surprised you're even considering building yourselves. Personally, I can only give the advice: don't build for others. Build what you will live in, no deserted rooms, no rooms that are used two or three times a year. And don't get hung up on any numbers.

Cozy... that's not my world... I prefer spacious. Regarding sleeping. Grandchildren are lively first of all... and during the day. I want to take that into account because they like it better at our place than in the parents' city apartments. There are a number of reasons for that, which are directly related to the house, the ground floor of the house, and not to the sleeping places. They sleep in our basement and have no problem with that.

"Don't build for others" is a very fitting remark. Deserted rooms is also true, and yet not, as surely enough clutter will find its last resting place there....