ᐅ 200 m² single-family house for 4-5 people without a basement on a narrow lot

Created on: 7 Sep 2019 18:07
H
hausbauer
Hello,

I’m looking forward to your opinions on this design.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size 525 m² (5650 sq ft), 17 m (56 ft) narrow along the street at the south end x 31 m (102 ft) long north-south orientation
Land is completely flat
Site coverage ratio 0.4
Floor area ratio 0.8
Building envelope, building line and boundary each 5 m (16 ft) from the street at the south and from the northern border
Edge development
Number of parking spaces 2
Maximum height / limits 8 m (26 ft) total height (attic will be quite low)

Client Requirements
Basement, floors 2 full floors without basement
Number of people, age 2 adults + 2 children (currently small) + possibly a third child
Room requirements on ground and upper floor 2 children’s rooms, 1 office/guest room large enough to be another children’s room, 1 additional small office, guest bathroom with shower, open living-dining area
Office: family use or home office? Only for work after hours and weekends, as well as for taxes etc.
Number of overnight guests per year few
Open or closed architecture
Balcony, roof terrace no
Garage, carport Double garage would be good, but probably won’t fit?
Utility garden, greenhouse no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, also reasons why some things should or shouldn’t be included
Bedroom facing north for a clear view; no north-facing garden because it would be too dark in autumn/winter due to shading from surrounding houses; overall, lots of natural light in the living areas is very important to us
Enough usable space and storage inside the house (large utility and service room), since we don’t have a basement and there is no room on the plot for large garden sheds

House Design
Who designed it: self-designed based on a template
What do you like most? Why? Layout of the upper floor (nice children’s rooms with south and southwest orientation, bedroom facing north, large utility room), possibility of a second terrace on the north side by the guest room for shade and view north in midsummer
What do you not like? Why? Entrance area on the ground floor is a bit narrow, otherwise we’re quite inexperienced with what might work well or not in everyday life.

If you had to compromise, on which details or expansions
-You could do without: large hallway areas, if necessary a half-landing staircase (instead of more space-consuming stairs), if needed a pantry next to the kitchen (could be replaced by space under the stairs), a structural requirement might mean adding an extra partition wall in the utility room (which could also be used as a room divider for more storage space)
-You cannot do without: south-facing living-dining area, enough space for bicycles etc. on the property (currently a bit tight)

Questions about the floor plan:
- Is the plot well used?
- Is the entrance area too narrow at 175 cm (69 inches)?
- Are the rooms arranged practically for a family of 4 to 5?
- Do we have enough storage given that we lack a basement and the attic is quite low?
- Is it a big disadvantage in terms of sound transmission that the two children’s rooms share a common wall?

Note: The entire plan will be revised by a professional once we are happy with the overall layout. Then dimensions will be more precise, drawings nicer, and structural calculations reliable. I’m just interested in early feedback on potential weak points and good alternatives.

Floor plan of a house with kitchen, living room, guest room, terraces and garden.


Floor plan of a house with guest room, living room, dining area, kitchen, pantry, WC, shed and stairwell.


Floor plan: bedroom 18 m² (194 sq ft), bathroom 13 m² (140 sq ft), office 10.1 m² (109 sq ft), utility room 10.3 m² (111 sq ft), children’s rooms 16.2/16.1 m² (174/173 sq ft), hallway.
Y
ypg
29 Sep 2019 22:26
Hausbauer schrieb:

Can you still get through in between?

Just getting through isn’t enough, unfortunately.
Without flipping through the thread again (I’m not sure of the exact context), here’s my answer:
The space in front of a wardrobe should be sized so you can open the door, step back about half a step, and have the wardrobe contents fully in view. At the same time, your partner should still be able to pass by while you are standing there. Personally, I would avoid a narrow, corridor-like wardrobe layout. It’s better to arrange the cabinets in an L-shape, which leaves more central space for dressing. The word “dressing” here is deliberate: a walk-in closet is not just a storage space for clothes, but a room where you select your outfit for the day and actually get dressed. Maybe Twiggy can undress in narrow aisles — but even she would struggle with a bra and silk tights in that space. Keep in mind that elbows and knees move away from the body and need extra clearance.
Hausbauer schrieb:

One more question @ypg: what width would you recommend for a walk-in closet if there are two 60cm (24 inches) wardrobes facing each other?

Enough room for you to sit on a chair in the space and dress or undress, including taking off your socks. Anything else that is often planned here hardly makes sense.
11ant29 Sep 2019 22:36
For kitchens, a standard distance of 120 cm (47 inches) between work aisles is common, with much of this space consisting only of elements at working height. For a walk-in closet, the individual door widths are similar, but the proportion of tall cabinets is significantly higher. I wouldn’t go below a 150 cm (59 inches) aisle width in that case – although a walk-in closet is usually considered a room where clothes taken from the wardrobe are also put on right there. If the space is only used to retrieve clothes and dressing happens elsewhere, less space might be possible. Still, less than 100 cm (39 inches) would likely feel uncomfortable unless you literally want to stand with your backside against the wall in front of the open closet door. Rather than turning it into a “social housing” afterthought, I would prefer to place the wardrobe traditionally in the bedroom instead of including a “walk-in closet” as a joke in the floor plan.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
H
hausbauer
29 Sep 2019 22:36
ypg schrieb:

Just barely getting by… that won’t work.
Without flipping through the thread again (I don’t know the exact context), I’ll answer the question:
The space in front of a wardrobe should be sized so that you can open the door, take half a step back, and have a clear view of the wardrobe contents. Also, your partner should still be able to pass by while you’re standing there. Personally, I would avoid a long narrow walk-in closet layout. It’s better to arrange the wardrobes in an L-shape; that way, there’s more space in the center to dress. The word “dress” here is deliberate, because a walk-in closet isn’t just a storage room for clothes, but a space where you select and put on your outfit for the day. Maybe Twiggy can undress in such narrow aisles – but even she would have trouble with a bra and silk tights in such tight spaces. Keep in mind elbows and knees moving away from the body.

In other words, the room should allow you to sit on a chair to get dressed and undressed, including putting on socks. Most other plans I’ve seen for such spaces don’t make much sense.


Dear Yvonne,
Thank you very much for the quick response! Specifically, it was about the bedroom layout shown in the image, where the walk-in closet was only 170cm (67 inches) wide before but could now, for example, be increased to 210cm (83 inches). Is 210cm (83 inches) an improvement, or do you still consider that too small for two 60cm (24 inches) wardrobes facing each other?

What other layout would you recommend given the room dimensions for the walk-in closet?

Best regards


Bedroom floor plan with bed, wardrobes, and seating furniture in the layout
11ant29 Sep 2019 22:48
Hausbauer schrieb:

Specifically, it was about the bedroom layout in the picture, where the walk-in closet was previously only 170cm (67 inches) wide but could now, for example, be expanded to 210cm (83 inches).
Because of what: inheritance, interest, global warming, holiday bonus? – twenty percent more on everything that plugs in or except pet food – with "too little" you can't buy ice cream if it was even less before.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
H
hausbauer
29 Sep 2019 22:52
I’m currently revising the plans a bit, and it seemed like a good opportunity to add a few extra centimeters to the dressing room. If 220cm (87 inches) instead of 210cm (83 inches) makes a significant difference, that would be feasible. If 280cm (110 inches) is the minimum requirement, it will be more difficult, and I would need to reconsider the overall concept. The idea is not to get dressed between the wardrobes, but rather to store and retrieve clothes.
Y
ypg
29 Sep 2019 22:53
Keep in mind that cabinets should not be placed directly against the walls.
I consider a) 210 cm (83 inches) to be far too narrow to make this space functional. It is less practical than a traditional bedroom wardrobe.
b) I think 310 cm (122 inches) for a bed with access is too tight.
Try sitting yourself on a chair or the edge of a bed and lean forward: how much space do you actually need without bumping your head?
It might work in your current rental, but there will come a time when you can no longer simply hop into bed and will need the space beside it.