The measurements between the stovetop and the sink will be tight, but slightly more than today. However, if more people are in the kitchen, they will have access to the entire other side of the island.
Regarding tall cabinets, it will be the same as today, one (but more cabinets in total) if, according to the sketch, there is an extra sink with a small countertop in the "wall". If not, there will be more. The idea with the "hole" was to have the coffee machine and kettle available without needing them on the island.
And no, it won't be a dream kitchen... but still the one we've liked the most for a long time. The dimensions are tricky with a width of 3.40 and the length being interrupted by the terrace door and "entrance".
We've also considered if we could close off the entrance (to make a longer angle) but we think it would feel strange when coming up from the stairs.
At one point, we considered moving the terrace door further out, but that would cover windows on the lower floor.
Might as well jump on this old thread, as the question is the same.
Our drawings look like this and we plan to build a room according to the orange marking here; the blue marking is a wall that doesn't exist (at least not today), but apparently exists on the original drawing.
Cross-section from the gable view (also in the drawing) shows this - we have a massive glulam beam in the ceiling along the entire length of the house, which I guess is supported via the exterior walls, while the interior walls are not load-bearing - not even the one under the "core wall"/where the beam runs.
If you cut out pieces of the drawing you have made, you lose context, such as the marking where the section is taken. You also lack the main measurements needed for a reasonability assessment. Spontaneously, it's hard for me to believe that the glulam beam would only have the end walls as support, but it cannot be assessed with this scant information.
If you cut out parts of the drawing as you have done, you lose context, such as the marking where the section is taken. You also lack the main dimensions needed for a plausibility assessment. Spontaneously, I find it hard to believe that the glulam beam would only have the gable walls as supports, but it can't be assessed with this scant information.
Here is the entire drawing
I imagine that the way to denote the beam in the cross-section in the image I posted above is some standard notation in building drawings. The absence of the interior walls in that image must mean something.
No, that is not how it should be interpreted. Rather, the section is taken somewhere where there is no wall, e.g., in the living room or through a doorway. When I see the whole floor plan, I wonder if there really is a glulam beam all the way? In any case, the cross walls are not included in the load-bearing system, so you can take them down without much concern.
Much better to create a new, own thread instead of jumping into a five-year-old thread.
But whether a wall that doesn't exist is load-bearing or not is not so interesting when you’re not going to tear anything down. You can build new walls wherever you want, as long as you don't cut any of the load-bearing parts.
Much better to create a new, own thread instead of jumping into a five-year-old thread.
But whether a wall that doesn't exist is load-bearing or not isn't very interesting when you're not tearing anything down. You can build new walls wherever you want, as long as you don't cut any of the load-bearing parts.
Ehh.. the wall exists . We want to put a door in the wall.
Wondering if anyone is knowledgeable about blueprints. We have measured two studs with a stud finder, where we need the door. It's only 6cm thick, so the studs are probably 45mm.
We want to be sure, of course. No unpleasant surprises during the vacation .
May have messed up a bit in the building
Want to remove the green wall but keep the small toilet
All blue are new walls
Red are already gone; saved the green for today and after taking down the drywall, I'm unsure if it can be load-bearing because the ceiling doesn't look the same on that wall
Missing beams in the ceiling on that particular section I want to take down
modulhus
So we should fill the forum with 200,000 different threads about the same things?
then some loving person will come and say use the search function
but ok then I'll make a new thread for every BEER I want all of you to try or the wine or the picture or whatever it may be..
own thread for everything or what
Please, what's happening here with building houses
not bitter just wondering a little kindly
Yes, when it comes to load-bearing walls, it's important to have your OWN thread for each house, because it is very inappropriate if someone accidentally mixes up the answers.
There are exactly zero suggestions to use the search function when it comes to load-bearing walls, because it requires that it is an identical house for the answers to be valid, i.e., not searchable.
What's happening here is probably the same as in the rest of society, tomtar who don't understand the difference between beer and load-bearing walls trying to apply the same rules to everything.
Rule:
Load-bearing walls: One thread for each house.
Beer and wine tasting: Take it in the same thread, but preferably own threads for beer, red wine, white wine, etc.
Parkslide: Take it in the large Parkslide thread.
KJD said:
But we want a door into the room
BirgitS said: