Is there actually a site plan somewhere? Not in post 1, anyway. Why are the 9x9 m set with 42/49 cm thick walls?
Unfortunately, the first post can no longer be edited here. That’s a shame, otherwise I would have liked to add or change some things. I have attached the site plan several times in between. Now again as an attachment.
No one here has been able to follow the 9*9 so far. For us, they are fixed. Just like the 42.5 cm bricks. If we win the lottery, there will be the 49 cm and then of course 13 cm more.
On the one hand, your window placements don’t work because you need beams on the ground floor. They have to rest somewhere on the outer wall. But you have windows everywhere there...
I have no idea about that. I would leave that to the architect. But certainly, even he can overlook something at the current stage. Which beams exactly do you mean where, so I can ask? Maybe with the new changes that is no longer an issue?!
On the other hand, look here: this is arranged much more sensibly, as you don’t build a bottleneck into the house or an installation that could be disturbing in the middle.
For us, that was not an option so far because we absolutely wanted a spatially separated cloakroom/vestibule. It is currently developing in such a way that it at least does not have to be “thermally separated” (so no door is needed), and I am currently also seriously considering whether it needs any separation at all or if your design would be okay for us. The most important thing was always that we don’t have to walk through the “shoe storage area.” And that seems to be ensured with you, provided the shoe cabinet is positioned.
Our architect sent the revised designs today. I rebuilt them again. Except for the “about 10-30 cm too narrow” bedroom and the entrance area (which is now open as we wanted but still very angular and small), I like it. In the last design, the roof was also too low. We now have almost 50 cm more headroom again and have shifted the 1 and 2 m lines each 40.7 cm outward. That really pays off in terms of roof area.
Edit: Explanation about the stairs:
He added one more step everywhere. So flatter. In the basement, however, he left the tread very short and added the step at the bottom. So it didn’t have to be turned at the top. But that does not comply with the safety rule, and the stride length is also too short. So actually a flat staircase for children. I don’t know if it should rather be shortened by one step again?
The other stairs are very okay, I think.
Starting floor |
Height |
Length |
Steps |
Rise |
Width |
Stride length rule (60/63-65\66) |
Safety rule (45/46\47) |
Comfort rule (12) |
Angle (30°) |
Basement |
277.5
|
390
|
16
|
17.3438 |
26 |
60.6875 |
43.34375 |
8.65625 |
33.70595654 |
Ground floor |
281.5
|
420
|
16
|
17.5938 |
28 |
63.1875 |
45.59375 |
10.40625 |
32.14312698 |
Upper floor |
268.5
|
393.4
|
15
|
17.9 |
28.1 |
63.9 |
46 |
10.2 |
32.49757156 |
EDIT2: We still lack space for a urinal in the ground floor WC (the suggestion from ypg could help there) and space for a cupboard in the bathroom.
