Good morning,
In principle, the floor plan we want to proceed with in the planning phase is already set.
See thread: #177 Finalizing the floor plan Bungalow 130m² (1,399 ft²) for 4 people
However, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss a different room orientation once more.
The "living rectangle" including the kitchen remains similar to the original floor plan. The living room will be slightly shorter.
Our garden area is on the south (left side of the plan) and west (top of the plan).
This would allow the following optimizations:
- Both children's bedrooms facing west would each get a terrace door, giving direct access to the courtyard (suggestion by @ypg)
- The living room would also receive 2 terrace doors directly, now with a view of the greenery instead of the neighbor’s boundary development
- The outdoor unit of the air-to-water heat pump would be located "behind" the house, where it would at most bother the neighbor
What I like less, and why I am posting again to get advice/comments:
Entrance / Hallway / Foyer
- (remains an L-shape) slightly longer
- I have no ideas for implementing a coat storage
- Lighting? Possibly a narrow window in the living room
Utility room / Guest toilet
- Unusual solution if you want to keep an "L-shaped corridor"
- Entrance area of the toilet would be walk-through space for the utility room
Other possible access points:
- Kitchen
- Guest toilet
- Door to the outside
Also the question: How high is the extra effort/cost if the utility room is located on the other side of the house, in terms of connection costs?
Top of the plan: West (utility connections)
Left side of the plan: South
Right side of the plan: North
Bottom of the plan: East
I hope I don’t just get opposition but can start a productive discussion here.
Basically weighing the pros and cons.
Thank you very much
In principle, the floor plan we want to proceed with in the planning phase is already set.
See thread: #177 Finalizing the floor plan Bungalow 130m² (1,399 ft²) for 4 people
However, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss a different room orientation once more.
The "living rectangle" including the kitchen remains similar to the original floor plan. The living room will be slightly shorter.
Our garden area is on the south (left side of the plan) and west (top of the plan).
This would allow the following optimizations:
- Both children's bedrooms facing west would each get a terrace door, giving direct access to the courtyard (suggestion by @ypg)
- The living room would also receive 2 terrace doors directly, now with a view of the greenery instead of the neighbor’s boundary development
- The outdoor unit of the air-to-water heat pump would be located "behind" the house, where it would at most bother the neighbor
What I like less, and why I am posting again to get advice/comments:
Entrance / Hallway / Foyer
- (remains an L-shape) slightly longer
- I have no ideas for implementing a coat storage
- Lighting? Possibly a narrow window in the living room
Utility room / Guest toilet
- Unusual solution if you want to keep an "L-shaped corridor"
- Entrance area of the toilet would be walk-through space for the utility room
Other possible access points:
- Kitchen
- Guest toilet
- Door to the outside
Also the question: How high is the extra effort/cost if the utility room is located on the other side of the house, in terms of connection costs?
Top of the plan: West (utility connections)
Left side of the plan: South
Right side of the plan: North
Bottom of the plan: East
I hope I don’t just get opposition but can start a productive discussion here.
Basically weighing the pros and cons.
Thank you very much
micric3 schrieb:
And of course, we include the accessory building (AG) in our planning, @11ant. I wonder why you keep assuming otherwise? (see the old AG plan attached) A design where the accessory building is integrated structurally into the new build was never planned. kaho674 schrieb:
Perhaps the OP hasn’t fully understood what it means to include accessory buildings. They are not just “included” in the plan, but actually integrated directly into the main house. It’s like building an extension and saving some square meters by repurposing the rooms. Maybe I missed the part where the OP explained why they don’t want that. It’s become too confusing by now. That’s exactly it. The integration isn’t primarily about the building mass itself, but about conceptual integration—which is missing here: part of an otherwise randomly mixed space program (and thus the spatial relationships of the entire household) is consistently left out and locked away in the “accessory building” black box. This is located, along with Snow White, behind the seven mountains with the seven dwarfs—out of sight from the kitchen table and therefore “out of mind.” And apparently, windowless walls are considered acceptable—or is this about the division I suggested between the building parts for the Hyde and Jekyll worlds?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
That's right. It's not about integration at the building mass level, or at least not primarily, but about conceptual integration. And do you have a design idea for this, or is it basically just an unavoidable opposition?
micric3 schrieb:
Furthermore, my question in #8 about how to possibly prepare for a worst case scenario remains unanswered.The question will probably remain unanswered because it was understood: I am familiar with empty conduits for electrical wiring and can imagine empty conduits for other utilities as well, but what on earth are empty conduits for worst case? – if those conduits are meant for an “alarm level 42” (= not knowing yet what might come), they would have to be multi-utility conduits, right? – that would probably mean at least DN 300 and, to be honest, I would be at a loss as to what the most suitable material for that would be.micric3 schrieb:
And do you have a design idea in this regard, or basically only a no-alternative objection?If by “no-alternative objection” you mean criticizing without backing it up with a specific alternative proposal: the omission of the outbuilding was invented solely by YOU and no one else – and as you can see, even Katja reaches her limits here, who normally always manages to compensate for such deficiencies on the part of the original poster.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
and as you can see, even Katja reaches her limits here, who usually manages to compensate for such deficiencies from the original poster.Uh, what?Maybe the original poster will come to like it after all. Has no one told him that he might save some money this way? Well, we don’t know the condition of the building. It would need a detailed inspection—also from an energy efficiency perspective. In any case, it has a considerable size which, if planned well, already offers a few rooms that would otherwise be expensive to build.
Unfortunately, I can’t find any dimensions, and what is still unclear to me are the parking spaces. At some point, I had something in mind about cars staying on the driveway. Is that still the case?
kaho674 schrieb:
Uh, what?Well, usually you throw out two, three, or four building suggestions along with views like a "quick interlude" while the original poster is still figuring things out. And so far, nobody — including you, unless I missed something — has addressed the lack of a comprehensive, building-wide room program.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Well, otherwise I see. That came up because the original poster had ruled that out at some point, and I actually assumed it was just some kind of garage.Similar topics