Single-family house of 200m² in 45° angled construction

No idea. But it’s true, the appearance resembles a building that has been rebuilt several times. Maybe instead of a full story a higher kneewall or dig the basement completely into the ground so that the ground floor is level with the ground. A flatter design would suit the building well.

It’s a huge house but it doesn’t have to look like a multi-family house because of that.

Try implementing Climbee’s suggestions.

The basement is completely underground. We want to have direct access to the terrace at ground level; due to the slight slope, there is a height difference of about 50 cm to the front door, which is why there are steps.

Then fill up there as well. It would do the opinion good

Then just fill up there as well. Would do the view some good

We had already considered that, but that is in the direction of the access roads and it is lower than the house, so somehow you still have to get up there. The garage is at the lowest point. Moving the entrance probably won't help either. The entrance steps are not desired and if they can be avoided, they will be removed.

It was mentioned that the load-bearing walls are facing the wrong direction. Does anyone have experience with this? The structural analysis has not yet been carried out.

Oh man, can you stop this bickering here? Do it via PM.

Bickering involving girls with under 100 posts is unfortunately only possible here as a broadcast

Obviously, they really want this unusual (and cost-increasing) building form.

The building ensemble itself is not unusual. Only two things are unusual: first, to authentically fake a conversion on a compromise-prone basis and rebuild it - that gives retro and vintage a whole new spin. And it is also not cost-increasing in terms of construction costs, but rather in terms of destroying the lending and resale value, because the market does not demand such a strange & crazy conversion fake – neither the classic real estate market nor the one for film sets. Second, unusual is the – let’s say politely – perfect emancipation of the floor plan shape from that of the plot

If I choose such an unusual shape, I make it the center of my house. For the "Wow" effect.

Here too, I can only agree with you and .

It was mentioned that the load-bearing walls are in the wrong direction. [...] The structural analysis has not yet been checked.

If you still don’t believe it, go to a local carpenter and just have him estimate the price for the roof structure.

The structural engineer doesn’t care, he just writes more steel and more under- and overbeams on the shopping list, then it fits, and in combination with the roof structure it matches the budget, even when using construction-beauty-adequate fittings. It is not the floor plan that makes the roof structure expensive, but the arrangement of the load-bearing walls. Placing them classically also crossing the rafters would probably make both the ceilings and the roof structure cheaper – even if the suggestion is followed to incorporate the kink into the spatial experience.

I summarize:
1. separate the interests of house shape and garden noise protection so that the main thing remains the main thing
2. don’t burn money on rebuilding a converted mixed-use commercial, office, and owner’s apartment property from 1960, but build a house of today
3. model the terrain without stairs to an old-fashioned elevated ground floor entrance
4. use the beloved kink firstly as a living-feel chakra and secondly to create a courtyard zone on the property
5. leave the structural planning to people who can think in ceiling fields and roof structures.

Maybe you’ll find a few more ideas at Gusek’s house in Bogenhausen:



Of course, it would have to be mirrored. But basically, I find the layout quite successful.