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
kaho674 schrieb:
What is also unclear to me: Who actually pays for the access road to the rear house? And who pays for the land? It should really be 100% attributed to the rear house. What use does the front house have for it? It’s of no benefit at all.The price for the easement right was probably already paid by the neighbor at some point to the current or former owner of Tolentino’s desired plot -> included in the purchase price of the land.
Tolentino can still consider himself lucky if he owns this strip. He can use it as an access way and does not have to maintain a 3-meter (10-foot) distance from it, as would be required if it belonged to someone else.
Tolentino schrieb:
What I still don’t understand (or maybe I just have a different opinion) is why it’s better to have two smaller strips in front of and behind the house, instead of one somewhat larger strip in front.
In my view, a larger continuous area offers more openness and also more options. You’re basically right.
It’s more about the fact that you’re not allowed to place anything on the strip in front. If you can’t even have parking spaces there, then probably no carport, shed, or any kind of tent either. That means bicycles, cars, and mowers have to be stored elsewhere, and the other side is more suitable since edge construction would be allowed there.
With a house width of 11m (36 feet), you’d only have about 2.30m (7.5 feet) left for a car, which in my opinion is too narrow. Sure, the house could be narrower, but then you lose depth in the garden again. But maybe let’s wait first and see if you even have a chance to get the land?
The advantage of
compared to
My approach was like this, placing technical rooms under the roof (though the house might be slightly too large):
compared to
- freedom in positioning the front door (whether north or west)
- the 4m (13 ft) distance to the north should be maintained, so there is enough space to maneuver into the parking area. Alternatively:
- check whether a carport is allowed on the legally designated area at the end of the property line (GFL) … unlike a garage, a carport does not require a concrete slab
- it’s uncertain if a sheltered area is permitted within the 5m (16 ft) strip… with Katja’s version, it would definitely be possible to build a shed on the boundary behind the right parking space
- with Katja’s layout, sitting comfortably behind a hedge on the west/northwest side is possible … enjoying the evening sun in summer
My approach was like this, placing technical rooms under the roof (though the house might be slightly too large):
Tolentino schrieb:
that the plot of land also influences the floor plan ... is undoubtedly true, and it’s important to know and mention these constraints. However, making them more or less the main principle for designing the floor plan seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse – just like with
Tolentino schrieb:
But when you say it’s actually super simple... my “don’t get caught up in additional restrictions” being misunderstood as “without additional restrictions, it just magically works itself out.”
Tolentino schrieb:
That’s not what I meant. "Buddy" isn’t a romantic partner, is it?
It was meant to express that they probably know what’s possible and what’s not. If they’re not currently involved but just went to the movies together back in school, that connection is even less relevant for your purposes than I thought.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Guys, you’re making a mistake in your thinking!
You can’t expect to park at a 90-degree angle in only 3 meters (10 feet) width. That’s not possible unless you add at least another meter (3 feet) and take 5 minutes turning every time. Or you need a crane.
However, I don’t understand why you’re stuck on a square shape: you can fit three children’s bedrooms better in a rectangular layout, and that is easily achievable here.
Tolentino schrieb:
At the top of the plan is the 3m (10 feet) groundwater level right, which I can also drive over. So I could just turn in there.
ltenzer schrieb:
I didn’t mean to park on the strip, but to use the strip itself as an access driveway and park behind the house. Because there you could build a paved parking space on the property boundary.
kaho674 schrieb:
I’m fully with @ltenzer, but I would put both parking spaces together behind the house and design the house as a rectangle:
You can’t expect to park at a 90-degree angle in only 3 meters (10 feet) width. That’s not possible unless you add at least another meter (3 feet) and take 5 minutes turning every time. Or you need a crane.
However, I don’t understand why you’re stuck on a square shape: you can fit three children’s bedrooms better in a rectangular layout, and that is easily achievable here.
Similar topics