Survey of saddle roof knee wall height

It looks more massive from the outside and that has to appeal to you.

That's right. But I wouldn't associate massive with spaciousness. But this is becoming off topic by now. The OP is concerned with the knee wall, which is also used.

From the outside it looks more massive and one has to like that.

Oh, so a Phaeton is therefore "more generous" than a Passat :)

It's about the knee wall for the OP, which is also used.

Funny to school the OP about what the OP is about :)
By the way, the more generous one would rather be the knee wall that one does not use *LOL*

Oh, so a Phaeton is therefore "more spacious" than a Passat :)

Gold scale :-)

I am of the opinion that houses with a high knee wall simply appear bulky and therefore also larger. The fact that this is not the case is shown by the fact that many (not all) do it this way in order to obtain more high space. So, as you already say, the spaciousness should actually be assessed the other way around: low knee wall = sufficient floor area to be able to do without the high space. More square meters of floor space are probably more expensive than raising the knee wall.

I (OP) was simply interested in whether other home builders, like us, did not exploit the full permitted height and if so, for what reasons not.

As you already said, generosity should actually be judged the other way around: lower knee wall = sufficient floor area to be able to dispense with the high space.

No, I meant it differently. Yvonne did say

The OP is concerned with the knee wall, which is also used.

And that's why I meant that the more generous part is the portion of the knee wall that is added beyond the "used" measure for practical purposes. Luxury is always only what goes beyond the need.

More square meters of floor area are probably more expensive than raising the knee wall.

On the contrary: the substitute villas are so popular because of the profit margin: if the attic is created as a full upper floor with the desired ceiling height alone, you need more rows of bricks for the higher straight walls and as a builder you can pocket what you save in return by putting on a cheap lid instead of the expensive roof truss. The same trick is played again with the stairs: the straight ladder for health insurance patients is cheaper in planning, construction, production, and installation (profit rocket stage 1 a to d) and additionally so plain that the customer gladly compensates for it with an upgrade in the covering - this upgrade is then profit rocket stage 2).

Funny to enlighten the OP about what the OP is about :)

Yes, it’s funny… that’s what happens when you ask someone something directly and someone else (here the OP) answers instead.

I am of the opinion that houses with a high knee wall simply look bulky and therefore also bigger.

I would have been interested in the answer from .

low knee wall = sufficient floor area to be able to do without the high space. More square meters of floor area are probably more expensive than increasing the knee wall.

If I have a shoebox of 160 sqm, I have, simplified, 2 floors with 80 sqm of floor/living space each. If I have a gable roof house of 160 sqm, I have, simplified and generally speaking, 2 floors with 91 sqm, of which only 69 sqm upstairs is real living space, the rest of 22 sqm is additional for a larger attic floor, but is still usable.

It looks more massive from the outside and you have to like that.

Yes, it's funny... that's what happens when you ask someone something directly and someone else (here the OP) answers instead. I would have been interested in the answer from . If I have a shoebox of 160sqm, I have, simplified, 2 floors with 80sqm of ground/living space each. If I have a gable roof house of 160sqm, I have, simplified and generally speaking, 2 floors with 91sqm, but upstairs only 69sqm of actual living space, the remaining 22sqm is additional floor space for a larger attic area but still usable.

Why is a house that has 2 full floors and a gable roof automatically "massive"? I have actually never heard that before. I find our house charming from the outside ;) And we like it even more inside! Because of the high rooms, we were able to create a great gallery at the front door, which would not have been as impressive with a standard ceiling height, for example. I am very grateful to our architect that he suggested this to us back then and we would build it the same way again, even if some here apparently see it differently.