....or am I completely off track. I thought that the effect (i.e., more space on floor 2) would be the same.... So now I saw in a picture that the roof angle is not the "interior angle" but the "exterior angle," and then 45 degrees would be sharper than e.g., 38 degrees. I'm a bit confused...
.
Rephrasing my question. If you want to make the upper floor of a 1.5-story house larger and roomier, what options are there, and what distinguishes the different options? I think
.Rephrasing my question. If you want to make the upper floor of a 1.5-story house larger and roomier, what options are there, and what distinguishes the different options? I think
45-degree roof pitch is a bit on the sweaty side, right? We initially thought of having it on our extension since it was the only one that fit, but because the existing house has a 34-degree pitch, the municipality refused it... So we're going with 2 floors with a 34-degree pitch instead =)
We have a Myresjöhus Kornett, where we changed the roof pitch from 45 to 38 degrees. To maintain the same volume, we have elevated wall eaves. In our case, it was the municipality that required us to have a maximum of 38 degrees. But I think the house turned out nicer, and not as church-like. / Erik
I thought I was starting to understand but now I'm confused again.egl said:
Which roof is "flatter," 38 degrees or 45 degrees? How do you get maximum indoor volume, elevated wall lives + 38 degrees or elevated wall lives + 45 degrees?
A very practical difference is that a raised wall life is considered a two-story house (unless it's about 1-3 dm raised wall life).Micke2 said:
So if the detailed plan prescribes single-story houses with finished attics, most houses with wall life will probably be excluded.
With mansard roofs, we have covered the three most common ways to gain more space on the upper floor.
You were a bit confused about the roof pitch. The angle indicated is between the roof and an imaginary horizontal plane above it. Imagine you are looking at the house from the gable end. Then, you draw a line from the ridge horizontally out to one side and measure the angle between it and the roof. The larger the angle there, the steeper the roof slopes.
Now to the space. All these methods for increasing space aim to move the intersection between the sloping roof and the upper floor's ceiling towards the long side, so that the interior gains a wider area with a horizontal ceiling and less sloping ceiling.
Imagine a typical 1 1/2-story house with a 38-degree roof pitch and that you are still looking at it from the gable end. Because the angle is relatively low, the intersection between the roof and the inner ceiling happens quite far in. It results in "a lot of sloping ceiling."
If you then increase the roof pitch to 45 degrees, the roof rises more steeply from the eaves and intersects the inner ceiling further out. The attic space becomes wider and there is less sloping ceiling.
A broken roof, mansard roof, takes it a step further by making the lower part of the roof very steep, usually up to 60 degrees (ours, for example, is 59). The intersection occurs even further out, thus even more space and even less sloping ceiling. To avoid a ridiculously high ridge, a lesser slope is made on the upper part of the roof, but this is irrelevant for the interior space since the "break" is usually above the level of the upper floor's ceiling.
Raised wall line is a slightly different way to achieve the same thing. Instead of increasing the roof pitch, the intersection point mentioned earlier is moved outwards by raising the point from which the sloping roof starts, i.e., the eaves.
I find it difficult to generally say what is "best" between a mansard roof and a raised wall line. The latter often provides a bit more space (I think? haven't calculated it) but it depends on how much the wall line is raised.
Raised wall line has the advantage that if the elevation is large enough, you can fit low windows on the upper floor's long sides, providing some side light to the rooms there. But on the other hand, you might encounter issues if the local plan prohibits 2-story buildings.
There is also a big visual difference. Personally, I like both and have a particular fondness for mansard roofs, but it depends on what you are after.
In most people's eyes, mansard might look a bit "old-fashioned" and "rustic" (ironically, because raised wall lines were probably more common in farmhouse buildings in the 19th century). Mansard also results in a relatively "lot of roof" and gives a slightly heavy impression that realtors like to call "manor-like". On smaller houses, I even think it can become a bit TOO heavy, especially if combined with large gable overhangs and wide eaves, particularly if you have concrete tiles. Mansard roofs look best with real tiles or standing seam metal, in my opinion.
The roof on houses with raised wall lines doesn't become as visually dominant. However, I think it can look a bit disproportionate, become a bit too "much wall" above the windows (the ones on the ground floor, that is) if not alleviated with those low windows I mentioned.
You were a bit confused about the roof pitch. The angle indicated is between the roof and an imaginary horizontal plane above it. Imagine you are looking at the house from the gable end. Then, you draw a line from the ridge horizontally out to one side and measure the angle between it and the roof. The larger the angle there, the steeper the roof slopes.
Now to the space. All these methods for increasing space aim to move the intersection between the sloping roof and the upper floor's ceiling towards the long side, so that the interior gains a wider area with a horizontal ceiling and less sloping ceiling.
Imagine a typical 1 1/2-story house with a 38-degree roof pitch and that you are still looking at it from the gable end. Because the angle is relatively low, the intersection between the roof and the inner ceiling happens quite far in. It results in "a lot of sloping ceiling."
If you then increase the roof pitch to 45 degrees, the roof rises more steeply from the eaves and intersects the inner ceiling further out. The attic space becomes wider and there is less sloping ceiling.
A broken roof, mansard roof, takes it a step further by making the lower part of the roof very steep, usually up to 60 degrees (ours, for example, is 59). The intersection occurs even further out, thus even more space and even less sloping ceiling. To avoid a ridiculously high ridge, a lesser slope is made on the upper part of the roof, but this is irrelevant for the interior space since the "break" is usually above the level of the upper floor's ceiling.
Raised wall line is a slightly different way to achieve the same thing. Instead of increasing the roof pitch, the intersection point mentioned earlier is moved outwards by raising the point from which the sloping roof starts, i.e., the eaves.
I find it difficult to generally say what is "best" between a mansard roof and a raised wall line. The latter often provides a bit more space (I think? haven't calculated it) but it depends on how much the wall line is raised.
Raised wall line has the advantage that if the elevation is large enough, you can fit low windows on the upper floor's long sides, providing some side light to the rooms there. But on the other hand, you might encounter issues if the local plan prohibits 2-story buildings.
There is also a big visual difference. Personally, I like both and have a particular fondness for mansard roofs, but it depends on what you are after.
In most people's eyes, mansard might look a bit "old-fashioned" and "rustic" (ironically, because raised wall lines were probably more common in farmhouse buildings in the 19th century). Mansard also results in a relatively "lot of roof" and gives a slightly heavy impression that realtors like to call "manor-like". On smaller houses, I even think it can become a bit TOO heavy, especially if combined with large gable overhangs and wide eaves, particularly if you have concrete tiles. Mansard roofs look best with real tiles or standing seam metal, in my opinion.
The roof on houses with raised wall lines doesn't become as visually dominant. However, I think it can look a bit disproportionate, become a bit too "much wall" above the windows (the ones on the ground floor, that is) if not alleviated with those low windows I mentioned.
Wasn't that a somewhat misleading statement?Mäster said:
The higher the wall, the more practical, as it allows for furniture placement against the wall - that's true.
But: The STEEPER the roof, the more practical, as it allows for furniture placement further out towards the wall than with a flatter roof (all else being equal, i.e., regardless of the height of the wall).
That an elevated wall can be combined with a flatter roof without detriment to the space is another thing; that's an advantage of the elevated wall, not the flatter roof (actually, one should say "flatter" anyway).
It doesn't have to at all. Here in the Stockholm area, there are quite a few small houses in the form of self-build homes from the thirties with elevated walls in places like Älvsjö, Tallkrogen, and Norra Ängby. Forum user and moderator Pinebar, among others, has one.Micke2 said:
I think these houses can look a bit funny, a bit "boxy" with long walls that are almost as high as they are long - not really, but it gives that impression. But they have their charm; together with the sparse woodwork that is typical of these houses' style, it becomes a kind of folk functionalism. It's something I think one could develop further in a small yet more modern villa with elevated walls, turning it into a kind of functionalism different from the usual contemporary modern villas.
By the way, speaking of mansard roofs, I forgot to mention something in the previous post that shouldn't be omitted here in the DIYers' stronghold on the web: Mansard roofs, with their steep lower part, can be a bit tricky for DIYers, especially if you're afraid of heights. You have to learn the trick of knocking up tiles here and there and standing and balancing on the battens.