ᐅ Preliminary floor plan design for a 220 m² single-family house
Created on: 20 Jun 2017 22:41
R
R.Hotzenplotz
Hello!
We have already gone through several plans with our architect and I think we are almost there, about to start the detailed planning phase. Before that, I’m looking forward to getting feedback from other users.
Development plan/restrictions: §34 – two full stories
Plot size: 1,085m² (1,1679 yd²)
Basement, floors – 2 full stories plus partial basement
Number of people, ages – 3 people (37, 34, 1, second child planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor – the requirement was that bedrooms and the study should be about 17m² (183 ft²) each; the entire house should be approximately 220m² (2,368 ft²)
Office: family use
Guests per year: 1
Open or closed architecture: closed
Traditional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island – no open kitchen, but yes to a kitchen island
Number of dining seats – 6
Fireplace – yes
Music/stereo wall – TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace – balcony
Garage, carport – large garage
Additional wishes/special features/daily routines, preferably with reasons why certain things should or should not be included – everyone should be able to sleep as undisturbed as possible in their bedrooms, even if other family members are awake. The husband is sometimes up as early as 4 a.m. Otherwise, watching TV in the evening should be possible without disturbing those sleeping upstairs.
House design
Who created the design:
- Architect (freelancer for a general contractor)
What do you like most? Why?
The upper floor with well-sized rooms and the location of the rooms exactly where they should be (only the washroom area we would still like to move to the outer right corner so that you don’t have to pass it every time you use the toilet). On the ground floor, the access through an airlock, the kitchen, and the dining area with the study next to it are especially liked.
Also appreciated is that after adjustments, the study now faces the garden instead of the street.
What don’t you like? Why?
We originally wanted the distance from wall to wall where the sofa and TV stand is to be about 6.40m (21 ft) (large screen & surround system), but so far only 5.69m (19 ft) has been realized.
Laundry room as described.
Kitchen larger in square meters than needed; the approx. 3m² (32 ft²) could theoretically be used well in the living area.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
720,000 euros (including construction incidentals)
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
800,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Gas
If you have to give up on something, which details/features can you do without?
- Can do without:
Technical systems like controlled residential ventilation
- Cannot do without:
Space (except for the kitchen)
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Is this a standard design from the planner?
The architect has largely implemented our wishes; the only issue is the living room situation.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion?
Patient, quick to implement, has already gotten to know us well.
No negative points.
Do you notice any other points that might not fit or that we should consider, which we might have overlooked?
In the basement, the room currently labeled as home cinema might possibly be used as one medium- to long-term. For the foreseeable future, it will be a storage room.
We have already gone through several plans with our architect and I think we are almost there, about to start the detailed planning phase. Before that, I’m looking forward to getting feedback from other users.
Development plan/restrictions: §34 – two full stories
Plot size: 1,085m² (1,1679 yd²)
Basement, floors – 2 full stories plus partial basement
Number of people, ages – 3 people (37, 34, 1, second child planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor – the requirement was that bedrooms and the study should be about 17m² (183 ft²) each; the entire house should be approximately 220m² (2,368 ft²)
Office: family use
Guests per year: 1
Open or closed architecture: closed
Traditional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island – no open kitchen, but yes to a kitchen island
Number of dining seats – 6
Fireplace – yes
Music/stereo wall – TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace – balcony
Garage, carport – large garage
Additional wishes/special features/daily routines, preferably with reasons why certain things should or should not be included – everyone should be able to sleep as undisturbed as possible in their bedrooms, even if other family members are awake. The husband is sometimes up as early as 4 a.m. Otherwise, watching TV in the evening should be possible without disturbing those sleeping upstairs.
House design
Who created the design:
- Architect (freelancer for a general contractor)
What do you like most? Why?
The upper floor with well-sized rooms and the location of the rooms exactly where they should be (only the washroom area we would still like to move to the outer right corner so that you don’t have to pass it every time you use the toilet). On the ground floor, the access through an airlock, the kitchen, and the dining area with the study next to it are especially liked.
Also appreciated is that after adjustments, the study now faces the garden instead of the street.
What don’t you like? Why?
We originally wanted the distance from wall to wall where the sofa and TV stand is to be about 6.40m (21 ft) (large screen & surround system), but so far only 5.69m (19 ft) has been realized.
Laundry room as described.
Kitchen larger in square meters than needed; the approx. 3m² (32 ft²) could theoretically be used well in the living area.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
720,000 euros (including construction incidentals)
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
800,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Gas
If you have to give up on something, which details/features can you do without?
- Can do without:
Technical systems like controlled residential ventilation
- Cannot do without:
Space (except for the kitchen)
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Is this a standard design from the planner?
The architect has largely implemented our wishes; the only issue is the living room situation.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion?
Patient, quick to implement, has already gotten to know us well.
No negative points.
Do you notice any other points that might not fit or that we should consider, which we might have overlooked?
In the basement, the room currently labeled as home cinema might possibly be used as one medium- to long-term. For the foreseeable future, it will be a storage room.
What does "crawl space" mean in this case? A ceiling height of 180 or 140 cm (71 or 55 inches) makes quite a difference; under the extension, you can afford a bit more space. I wouldn’t want to discard a foundation and all house penetrations unnecessarily.
Demolishing a basement also costs money. Where a basement is designed as a crawl space, groundwater issues are often not far away.
I would worry less about load-bearing walls because they mainly support the current ground floor ceiling, which might not necessarily remain. As mentioned, I can also imagine preserving the basement without necessarily keeping the house. Possibly nothing would stay above the finished floor level, at least above eaves height.
Keep in mind that demolition effort causes rental losses, meaning you pay money without increasing the living value of the new build. From a financing perspective, it doesn’t increase the mortgage lending value either—it is basically acquisition costs, fortunately not additionally taxed.
What the existing structure is worth can be seen differently by other people. If you can provide the forum participants with a clearer, more detailed impression than the current photos, I could well imagine getting new ideas from that, including potential savings.
My thoughts are based on the following assumptions: intact building fabric of basement and ground floor walls—intact house penetrations and drainage situation—an aging roof in need of energy-related renovation (though irrelevant due to planned additional stories)—likely an oil heating system, single-pane wood windows, and beige sanitary fixtures with moss-green tiles—currently outdated limited electrical and telephone outlets—central ceiling lamps, and so on.
Stairwell openings can be closed, so a basement imposes fewer constraints than one might initially think.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Demolishing a basement also costs money. Where a basement is designed as a crawl space, groundwater issues are often not far away.
I would worry less about load-bearing walls because they mainly support the current ground floor ceiling, which might not necessarily remain. As mentioned, I can also imagine preserving the basement without necessarily keeping the house. Possibly nothing would stay above the finished floor level, at least above eaves height.
Keep in mind that demolition effort causes rental losses, meaning you pay money without increasing the living value of the new build. From a financing perspective, it doesn’t increase the mortgage lending value either—it is basically acquisition costs, fortunately not additionally taxed.
What the existing structure is worth can be seen differently by other people. If you can provide the forum participants with a clearer, more detailed impression than the current photos, I could well imagine getting new ideas from that, including potential savings.
My thoughts are based on the following assumptions: intact building fabric of basement and ground floor walls—intact house penetrations and drainage situation—an aging roof in need of energy-related renovation (though irrelevant due to planned additional stories)—likely an oil heating system, single-pane wood windows, and beige sanitary fixtures with moss-green tiles—currently outdated limited electrical and telephone outlets—central ceiling lamps, and so on.
Stairwell openings can be closed, so a basement imposes fewer constraints than one might initially think.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
R
R.Hotzenplotz28 Jul 2017 18:4611ant schrieb:
What does "crawl space" mean in this case?Something like this.
It’s about 1/4 of the basement. In front of it is a concrete block roughly 1.20 m (3 ft 11 in) high and about 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) deep, standing in the middle of the room right before the crawl space.
Unfortunately, I have no way to upload pictures of all this. But according to all the experts we consulted, the entire structure is unusable. There is even asbestos used in some parts, which needs to be removed.
The demolition was quoted at €22,000. That doesn’t sound very high to me, so I’m not desperate to insist on keeping the existing structure.
We’re now taking the weekend to reconsider everything. We still really like the original design and continue to believe that it’s possible to achieve something reasonable with the necessary adjustments. The design wasn’t poorly received by other users here at the time either. The issues with the offsets are obviously a concern. The room layout and exterior appearance are not a problem for us—we can work on those. We really like the idea of the kitchen on the right side, and we also like the layout of the upper floor in terms of room arrangement.
We had also asked the architect for a distinctive architectural style, one that differs from the many similar houses standing side by side in new housing developments. We said we were willing to spend more money for that.
On the other hand, the Bauhaus-style alternative we were shown doesn’t appeal to us at all. Massive bulky walls that don’t look any better to us even with accent colors.
One more comment on:
11ant schrieb:
With a new architect, I wouldn’t have just modified the previous design, I’d have started anew.The "new" architect took over the project. Their job is to adapt the external architect’s design, if necessary, so the general contractor can build the house. That’s their primary task. And since we judged the external architect’s design as "fitting" and said “go ahead and price it,” that’s what’s being worked with... The fact that we didn’t like the initially obvious required changes, because we had fully committed to the other design, is one thing. But to dismiss the entire design immediately after one meeting without trying to find solutions first?
Of course, they can plan something completely new if necessary. I just haven’t seen that point arrive yet, nor do I see that it would necessarily be better.
I think we’ll have it planned, corrected, and priced in more detail, and then we still have a professional building consultant / expert we can ask to review the structural issues.
If it really turns out that the structural engineer finds a solution with invisible steel beams, that would be a huge step in the right direction.
11ant schrieb:
Why not?
To me, it still looks botched. I wouldn’t have expected that it could be topped (with the columns).I asked for alternatives to the sketched beams. I wouldn’t want to use the columns either, but it’s okay that they were shown for completeness.
11ant schrieb:
The poor child living above the front door suddenly has their room visually cramped in depth by the cinemascope panoramic window.We noticed that too, but we will address the windows later in consultation.
R
R.Hotzenplotz28 Jul 2017 22:07chand1986 schrieb:
And: Not everything that looks great and impressive from the outside provides good living quality inside.We almost like the current room layout perfectly. The main issue or task left to solve is the situation with the separate balcony versus the large rooftop terrace — and the beams, if the structural engineer does not come up with a positive solution here. The terrace layout also needs to be revised because, under the new conditions, the terrace makes more sense next to the dining area; it might even be possible to use corner glazing there. The rear appearance would need a complete redesign anyway.
Regarding the topic “design messed up further,” I have taken a closer look at the exterior appearances and find the following disturbing. I’m posting two photos... one shows a subtle thin line between the beam above the guest bathroom, and the other suddenly a large block... what looked subtle at first fit well, but later on does not seem to work anymore.
Also, I believe the approved draft design (which I have attached again) worked so well because of the building’s appropriate width. Due to the reduction, that effect has been lost. In addition, the windows no longer fit, and the bay window becomes too dominant.
Now, we have a room layout we like but not a suitable exterior to match. With this premise, we will probably have to discuss it again. Finding solutions would then be the architect’s responsibility. Ideally, without the bay window. If that is removed, a hipped roof solution becomes interesting again.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
The demolition was offered for €22,000. That doesn’t sound so high to me that I would have to desperately hold on to the existing building. Demolition including disposal? – then take the offer. Your photo looks scary, and in the background, I think there is a rubble stone wall; I had estimated the house to be from the 1960s until now. So I guess I have to withdraw my suggestion.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
We still really like the original design and still suspect that with the necessary adjustments, something reasonable can be achieved. No, let go of this bee-line rotation basis. Your sketch design was much better, especially clearer, but above all: buildable. In my opinion, THAT is the true original design.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
On the other hand, we absolutely don’t like the Bauhaus-style alternative that was shown to us. Huge bulky walls, which don’t look any better to us even when highlighted with color. No, a white flat-roof house with gray panels next to the windows and ruby-red bay windows is not Bauhaus, that’s more like a DIY-store style. Your favorite design with the rubble stone leopard print isn’t any better in that regard, and the bulky parts are the offsets.
A “real” Bauhaus-style house works with shadow lines that only have projections of about 25cm (10 inches) in a single dimension. Here, you created two dozen of such profiles within each side view, sometimes even two within less than a meter (39 inches) apart, and the majority protrude in three dimensions at once (and find a matching element with different dimensions at the other end of an adjoining line). On site, you will find yourself measuring everything in disbelief if the architect seriously builds you this overdose. On paper, it all looks much less severe. And of course, the thermal bridges, waterproofing, and supporting beams will cost as much as a second basement in total.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
His task is to adjust the external architect’s design as needed so that the general contractor can build the house. The umpteenth patch leads to anything but clean code. This also applies to hardware like a house. I see his role rather as implementing your sketch. Saving the botched work of his colleague is not his job—at least not if it’s supposed to help you reach your goal.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
Now we have a floor plan we like but no matching exterior. With this premise, we will probably have to go back into discussions. Developing solutions would then be the architect’s task. Ideally then without bay windows. If those go away, the hip roof solution becomes interesting again. Let go of the (delusional) idea that removing the offset excesses would cause the whole Bauhaus dream to die, and that you can only drown the grief in a hip roof.
RobsonMKK schrieb:
I would try to let go of the great pictures. We never got a single 3D image from our architect, yet we knew from his HAND DRAWINGS beforehand how it would turn out. Not despite, but because of. This “3D” lies without blinking. It makes houses look buildable in a Minecraft style. And always that bright white, like the houses you see in holiday catalogs from Greece. But that only exists on the Mediterranean, not next to the A4 :-(
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I am very upset because I forgot something in my comprehensive comment:
Unfortunately, invisible steel beams only exist in fairy tales or from a Molvanian manufacturer.
I think he rather means placing steel beams with reasonable dimensions in areas where they can transition into subtle suspended ceiling sections.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
If it really comes to the point where the structural engineer finds a solution with invisible steel beams, that would be a huge step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, invisible steel beams only exist in fairy tales or from a Molvanian manufacturer.
I think he rather means placing steel beams with reasonable dimensions in areas where they can transition into subtle suspended ceiling sections.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics