Plan for building a single-family house, sticking point living basement, dream or nightmare

I think the decision to build with architects has been made for us.

Everything that is somehow not "standard" (i.e. only approximately found in the contractor's catalog) should, in my opinion, be built with an architect. Therefore ... good luck with the property search!

The correct procedure is indeed to first consider the size of the house (BGF/BRI), the number of floors, the number of completed residential units, etc., and then look for a suitable plot of land, which is likely not easy in the Cologne surrounding area. Perhaps you could have a look around the Zülpich area.

The house design will then be developed by the architect based on this basic concept within the framework of the building and planning law requirements applicable to the desired plot, which are, for example, set out in a development plan: floor area ratio/plot ratio (utilization of the plot); eave and ridge heights, roof shape, building lines, building boundaries, etc.

If no development plan exists, the admissibility of the building project must be negotiated and agreed upon in a preliminary building application according to §34 of the Building Code with the responsible building authorities. The effort required for a basement, due to geological and hydrological conditions, is clarified by a soil survey, which may not be carried out before the purchase but can possibly be inspected for a realized building project in the neighborhood. As a rule, living spaces should be built above ground; basements are basically just costly storage or technical rooms, which can be constructed more cost-effectively elsewhere if the plot conditions allow.

The mentioned cost framework is realistic but is decisively defined by the house design (concept, construction, building services) and your equipment wishes. Here too, the architect can adjust many "control points" to achieve an optimal result within a defined cost framework.

[TE="merlin83, post: 103986, member: 21971"]Ok - and how do you justify that? It's not that I don't want to believe you - but with a justification it would be more understandable to me.[/QUOTE]

Quite simple: You only have one offer - that is an estimate and during the construction phase decisions can quickly be made that increase the costs (usually the builder himself is to blame if the costs rise because these are his wishes).

And in my experience the shell builder is anyway the cheapest trade in terms of price/performance - expensive surprises come with the roof, electricity, heating/plumbing...

Earthworks are not without problems either...

Well, maybe you’re lucky - but better don’t get fixated on it as long as you don’t have a final bill.

Good morning,

The correct procedure is indeed to search for a suitable plot after initial considerations of the size of the house (GFA/BRI), the number of storeys, the number of self-contained residential units, etc., which will probably not be easy in the Cologne surrounding area. Maybe have a look around the Zülpich area.

Agreed up to this point; although, who wants to move to Zülpich ...?

The house design is then developed by the architect according to this basic concept within the framework of building and planning law requirements that apply to the desired plot, which are, for example, set out in a development plan: floor area ratio/plot ratio (utilization of the plot); eaves and ridge heights, roof shape, building lines, building boundaries, etc.

Here we part ways, as I cannot see any sense in arousing desires that I am not sure I can realize.

Setting rudimentary key data, such as number of storeys, possibly roof shape, is one thing; developing a house for which there is no 100% certainty that it can ultimately be built is quite another.

The mentioned cost framework is realistic, but is decisively defined by the house design (concept, construction, building services) and your equipment wishes. Here, too, the architect can adjust many "fine-tuning screws" in order to achieve an optimal result within a defined cost framework.

Yes, I know these fine-tuning screws... "use an ETICS, have a gas condensing boiler installed, etc..."

I know many architects, but only a few who are actually able to have their own cost estimate confirmed by the later house construction. Happy builders who can name such an example as their contractual partner

Rhenish greetings from the road

Yes, I know these adjusting screws ... "use an ETICS, have a gas condensing boiler installed, etc. ..."

I can still understand ETICS... but I don't see the gas condensing boiler as a disadvantage. Regardless of the acquisition costs, in my experience opinions differ significantly here.

Good evening,

I can still understand ETICS... but I don't see the gas condensing boiler as a disadvantage. Regardless of the acquisition costs, in my experience opinions differ significantly here.

There is also nothing fundamentally wrong with ETICS if a builder chooses this option on their own initiative.

However, at least in my experience with architects, it is rather the case that ETICS is recommended because the architect can then avoid the discussion about cracks in the facade.

It is similar with the recommendation for a gas heating system. The legislator wishes for and promotes the installation of renewable energies. Since these ultimately represent new territory for most builders (still), they are uncertain and can easily be led by the "experienced" architect towards "the familiar old" or even their prejudices.

Among other reasons, I am curious how architects will sell the new Energy Saving Ordinance with gas from January onwards. Because then, in my opinion, an additional ventilation will no longer be sufficient to reach the reference house.

Regards from the Rhineland