Single-family house - flat roof - forest edge location - 175 sqm

Which overhang do you mean?



Honestly, I don't quite understand the roof, but that might be due to the graphic. If you mean the marked one, sure it’s possible, but it’s unnecessarily expensive. Depending on the construction method, it has to be built accordingly and additionally insulated.
Is the roof itself then not supposed to have an overhang?

Edit: Is this going to be a flat roof or a monopitch roof?

Which overhang do you mean?



Honestly, I don't really understand the roof, but that might be due to the graphic. If you mean the marked one, sure, that's possible, it just costs unnecessarily. Depending on the construction method, it has to be made accordingly and additionally insulated.
The roof itself should then not get an overhang?

Edit: Is this going to be a flat roof or a shed roof?

It is supposed to be a shed roof, but I can't depict it any better. However, I meant that child 2 is above the covered seating area. I have illustrated it in the lower graphic. Is a thick insulation enough here or will I have problems?

No, that’s fine, it will just be packed extra (insulated). And depending on the statics, you either need a support and/or more steel and/or part of the outer wall will be concreted, there are different approaches depending on the size of the overhang. Your structural engineer will tell you. It’s definitely additional costs.

I would like to explicitly ask again about the overhang of the upper floor for the outdoor seating area. Do people still build something like this, or do they say that this thermal bridge is simply accepted? Or is it technically possible to avoid the formation of a thermal bridge here?

The technical solution is called Isokorb by the company Schöck, for example - I still consider the trend of wanting to "spice up" houses with planning complications nonsense.

The technical solution is called Isokorb by the company Schöck, for example – I still think the trend of wanting to "spice up" houses with planning complications is nonsense.

By now I know your attitude on this topic. However, I do not see a cantilever of the upper floor or an inset of the lower floor as a fad. For me, it is a technical solution for a covered outdoor seating area. Moreover, I like the resulting division of the ground floor.

Whether Isokorb elements are needed will be told to me by the architect/structural engineer. This would mean the ceiling of the ground floor would have to be cast in two sections. Perhaps insulation will be sufficient.

The technical solution is called Isokorb by the company Schöck, for example - I still think the trend of wanting to "spice up" houses with planning complications is nonsense.

We almost all do some wonderful nonsense to our houses, don't we?