ᐅ Location of a city villa or detached single-family house on a 500 m² rectangular plot
Created on: 17 Jan 2020 18:03
T
Tolentino
Dear all,
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
ltenzer schrieb:
I didn’t mean parking on the strip itself, but using the strip as a driveway and parking behind the house. Because there you could build a paved parking space along the property boundary. Oh, I see!
I’ll have to think about that.
ltenzer schrieb:
With the option of a parking space in front of the house, this area would officially just be lawn. You could install gravel turf (google the term if you’re not familiar) and then simply park there once the building authority has approved everything. Yes, obviously I’m not allowed to build a formal parking space on the 5m (16 feet) boundary strip. Whether I’ll still park there later depends more on how the neighbors feel about it, so I wouldn’t count on that for sure.
ltenzer schrieb:
The building authority might also require you to officially designate parking spaces on your own property. One option would be to indicate the rear area in the building application but not actually develop it in reality... I was told that one parking space per dwelling unit is mandatory.
ltenzer schrieb:
You would only lose 2 meters (6.5 feet) of garden if you planned your garden between the house and the street in the northwest (!) corner. I wouldn’t do that, because it doesn’t make sense to me if there’s a large southwest-facing area next to the house. From a southwest-facing terrace, you can still nicely watch the summer sunset in the northwest to the side. In other seasons, the sun sets in the southwest or west anyway. So a southwest garden is perfect. Yes, I was rather referring to a continuous garden area. If the house stands on the 5m (16 feet) line, you end up with narrower strips both in front and behind the house. But I understand what you mean.
I’ll just have to think it over or discuss it again with the builders.
haydee schrieb:
With 350k all-in, you won’t get far.
That leaves 300k for the house.
Mitwachshaus Flair 148 has enough rooms, or Lichthaus 152, then the attic could become an office if you have three children.
Stadthaus Flair 152 RE
However, you won’t have much room for customization during selection. We understand that we can’t have high expectations there. But I’m pragmatic about it.
We have a bit of funding potential through my father-in-law, although he can’t help us all the time, of course.
I’m confident I can install click laminate flooring in the living areas myself—I already managed that in a crooked old building. It should work well enough in a relatively straight and level new build.
I’m curious about the first offers anyway. The first construction company is already building on the neighboring plot at the back, so there could be synergies for site development and possibly during construction.
I’ve arranged for them to initially base their calculations only on size and number of rooms, using the maximum upgrade level (they don’t know my budget). They might also price downgraded packages in advance.
Then we’ll reduce step by step.
And if it still doesn’t work out, we’re lucky to be able to plan with someone else here, since it’s free of any binding contracts!
Tolentino schrieb:
What about privacy screening? I believe I can safely install a fence up to 1.7 m (5.6 ft) and a hedge up to 2 m (6.6 ft).That’s not necessarily certain. What does the zoning plan say? What does the surrounding area look like? Is there a design code or architectural guideline?haydee schrieb:
The Flair 148 grow-with-me house has enough rooms, or the Lichthaus 152, then the attic can be used as a home office if there are three children.
Townhouse Flair 152 RE I just forgot: Thanks for the standard house suggestions, I’ll check them out right away.
Pinky0301 schrieb:
That’s not certain. What does the zoning plan say? What does the surrounding area look like? Is there a design code? Okay, I’m relying a bit on what the real estate agents say.
There is no zoning plan on the street side.
According to the Berlin building regulations, fences up to 2m (6 ft 7 in) are allowed, as there seems to have been an adjustment. However, the neighbors mostly have about 1.7m (5 ft 7 in), I would say (estimated based on my height).
Hedges with the appropriate setback from the boundary range from 50cm to 2m (20 inches to 6 ft 7 in), and over 2m (6 ft 7 in), 1m (3 ft 3 in) or higher.
I completely agree with @ltenzer, but I would place both parking spaces together behind the house and design the house in a rectangular shape:
First, you only have one car anyway, and second, this leaves more space for the terrace. You could possibly move the vehicle a bit further downwards on the plan so that there is a walkway to the front door:
First, you only have one car anyway, and second, this leaves more space for the terrace. You could possibly move the vehicle a bit further downwards on the plan so that there is a walkway to the front door:
Tolentino schrieb:
Yes, clearly on the 5m (16.5 ft) boundary strip, I am officially not allowed to place a parking spot. Whether I would still park there later would depend more on how the neighbors feel about it and not be firmly planned in advance.
Yes, I meant a continuous garden area. If the house is located on the 5m (16.5 ft) line, you end up with rather narrow strips in front of and behind the house. It’s just a question of how strictly they enforce the 5m (16.5 ft) strip in front of the house. That no parking space is allowed there is quite surprising. Was there any reasoning given?
Simply doing it anyway is not that easy. You have to provide proof during construction, and it definitely won’t be allowed at the front.
Ok, I’ll take away that I should have as much space as possible on the south side, which makes perfect sense to me. So if the shape isn’t square, the shorter side should be parallel to the street (landscape orientation rather than portrait).
What I haven’t quite understood yet (or maybe I just have a different opinion) is why it’s better to have two smaller strips of land in front of and behind the house, instead of one slightly larger area in front.
In my view, a larger continuous space offers a greater sense of openness and more possibilities.
I was thinking of placing a small shelter for trash bins, bicycles, etc., as a boundary construction directly on the edge of the street and the green strip, and then the parking space next to it.
Something like this:
What I haven’t quite understood yet (or maybe I just have a different opinion) is why it’s better to have two smaller strips of land in front of and behind the house, instead of one slightly larger area in front.
In my view, a larger continuous space offers a greater sense of openness and more possibilities.
I was thinking of placing a small shelter for trash bins, bicycles, etc., as a boundary construction directly on the edge of the street and the green strip, and then the parking space next to it.
Something like this:
Similar topics