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.
R
R.Hotzenplotz30 Jul 2017 14:51Many people have raised concerns about flat roofs, especially regarding potential moisture damage later on.
It really depends on the specific house. Some look better with a hip roof, others suit a flat roof. A flat roof definitely needs some kind of overhang. That way, you at least have a setback.
You can never have enough Bauhaus style. We just don’t like a “boring” urban villa—that is, a simple rectangular shape with a hip roof and no features to make the building stand out.
For the last design, we would have chosen the hip roof instead of the flat roof if it weren’t for the bay window. The edge at the front of the hip roof is just awful.
It really depends on the specific house. Some look better with a hip roof, others suit a flat roof. A flat roof definitely needs some kind of overhang. That way, you at least have a setback.
You can never have enough Bauhaus style. We just don’t like a “boring” urban villa—that is, a simple rectangular shape with a hip roof and no features to make the building stand out.
For the last design, we would have chosen the hip roof instead of the flat roof if it weren’t for the bay window. The edge at the front of the hip roof is just awful.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
Some people suit a hip roof, others suit a flat roof. Exactly. And almost no one suits both, at least not without adjustments.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
Flat roofs definitely only with an overhang. Nonsense. Flared trousers and platform shoes are long out of fashion, and the trend for white cars is also fading soon. The overhangs shown in the "3D" renderings don’t look like they are meant to be part of the finished house, but rather just a polystyrene model of it. A house should look like it was designed by an architect, not a nail technician. House with spoiler
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
The front edge on the hip roof is just rubbish. Hip roofs can be extended as well – but this is complicated when soffits are clad.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
R
R.Hotzenplotz30 Jul 2017 23:2111ant schrieb:
Every corner (per dimension) is a critical point. This could mean the structural engineer ends up taking two vacations this year (nothing like Birgen Air, Egypt), and afterwards, a family of building damage repair specialists will be secure for several generations. This is the maximum level of complexity you can build. On the other hand, I don’t understand how the provider can casually dismiss concerns about possible complications. They must also guarantee their work, and if building defects are almost inevitable, they should have an interest in guiding the client in a different direction...
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
On the other hand, I don’t understand why the contractor dismisses concerns about possible complications so lightly. The explanation is quite simple: he does not have these concerns himself yet. How could he? – This design cannot be built solely because of the layout of the upper floor’s exterior walls. In earlier energy regulation times, it might have been possible, although it would have required an enormous amount of structural engineering effort. But today, the part of the floor slab that is not covered by the upper floor’s exterior walls must also be thermally insulated. Not just wrapped in insulation material, but also separated from the rest of the floor slab. This is practically impossible to achieve, which is why they have never built it that way and therefore do not know about the potential damages that could theoretically result.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
They should also provide a warranty for their work, and if construction defects are practically inevitable, they should have an interest in guiding the builder in a different direction... At the current stage of planning, this is not yet apparent because the relevant specialists have not been involved. Once the structural engineer finally takes the project on, it will become clear: if you want to stay within budget, their profit is no longer possible. Then they will not want to do it. The project won’t even reach the planner responsible for the “thermal breaks” (Isokörbe). If there were agreement tomorrow on the final design to pursue, a call would come within weeks: sorry, that simply won’t work.
Today’s architects who design primarily with mouse clicks don’t notice this. When the experienced draftsman says it’s unbuildable, they simply think he’s stuck in the past. They only believe the engineer once he shows them the calculation process.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
But nowadays, the part of the floor slab that is not covered by the upper floor exterior walls also needs to be thermally insulated. Not just wrapped with insulation material, but also insulated from the rest of the floor slab. That would be practically impossible to build. Wouldn’t that affect all houses with recesses on the upper floor and, for example, roof terraces? Am I understanding this correctly?
R
R.Hotzenplotz31 Jul 2017 08:16kaho674 schrieb:
That would be unbuildable. Wouldn’t all houses with setbacks on the upper floors and, for example, roof terraces be affected? Am I understanding this correctly?No more stepped upper floors at all? So only fully aligned floors from now on?
Similar topics