ᐅ Building a Single-Family Home With or Without a Basement on a Small Plot of Land
Created on: 24 Jan 2020 08:25
D
Davidoff86
Good morning everyone,
In our house planning process, like many others, we are facing the question of whether to build with or without a basement.
We have a flat, 225 m2 (2,422 sq ft) plot, on which, according to the development plan, we are supposed to build a single-family house. The house consists of a ground floor, first floor, and a recessed top floor (this is required by the development plan) and has a maximum gross building footprint of 9x9 m (30x30 ft), so we expect a living area of at least 150-160 m2 (1,615-1,722 sq ft). Under these conditions, the basement question is quite complicated.
Arguments in favor of the basement:
Arguments against:
And so on...
I know there are many, partly inconsistent (what if...) factors involved. Also, the topic of basements is always sensitive; some are generally in favor, others generally against.
Nonetheless, I would be very grateful for concrete and objective advice. Perhaps some of you have faced the same issue under similar conditions (small plot, strict development plan regulations, no free layout expansion of the ground floor, soil conditions, etc.) and I would be interested to hear how this was or is resolved regarding building services and storage space.
For better understanding, I am attaching the development plan.
Many thanks to everyone who would share their experience with me. Best regards

In our house planning process, like many others, we are facing the question of whether to build with or without a basement.
We have a flat, 225 m2 (2,422 sq ft) plot, on which, according to the development plan, we are supposed to build a single-family house. The house consists of a ground floor, first floor, and a recessed top floor (this is required by the development plan) and has a maximum gross building footprint of 9x9 m (30x30 ft), so we expect a living area of at least 150-160 m2 (1,615-1,722 sq ft). Under these conditions, the basement question is quite complicated.
Arguments in favor of the basement:
- A basement obviously offers a lot of space, for example, for building services, laundry, storage, etc.
- Without a basement, we definitely need a utility room on the ground floor. Although the external dimensions of 9x9 m (30x30 ft) would allow for this, we would prefer to use that space differently (e.g., my wife is a teacher and needs a home office);
- We will build a 10x3 m (33x10 ft) garage with an extra room, but this is limited to about 4x3 m (13x10 ft), where we have to store bicycles and garden furniture. Unfortunately, there is no more space, e.g., for a garden shed or similar;
- We currently have one child but plan for at least a second or even a third. The space could therefore become tight;
- Higher property value.
Arguments against:
- Due to the high groundwater level, the basement must be built as a watertight structure ("white tank" method), which means:
- High costs—I estimate at least €60,000–70,000 (utility basement, with few or no windows);
- Despite the watertight construction, I am still concerned about moisture, for example, if the basement is not built correctly. A house with a damp basement is worth less than one without;
- The idea of more children is, of course, uncertain. What if more children do not come? We would have a large house with little use for it.
And so on...
I know there are many, partly inconsistent (what if...) factors involved. Also, the topic of basements is always sensitive; some are generally in favor, others generally against.
Nonetheless, I would be very grateful for concrete and objective advice. Perhaps some of you have faced the same issue under similar conditions (small plot, strict development plan regulations, no free layout expansion of the ground floor, soil conditions, etc.) and I would be interested to hear how this was or is resolved regarding building services and storage space.
For better understanding, I am attaching the development plan.
Many thanks to everyone who would share their experience with me. Best regards
kaho674 schrieb:
I think 2.5 floors should be just enough for a family of four. But if there are 2 children instead of 1, it will get tight. Then I believe the basement should definitely be included. (Having 3 children is a luxury. Here we go again with the space and children discussion.) I see it differently. Originally, a 9x9 meter (30x30 feet) footprint was mentioned. That means about 125 to 130 m² (1345 to 1400 sq ft) on 2 full floors, which is roughly 60 m² (645 sq ft) per floor. That’s a very typical semi-detached house for a family with 2 children!
On the ground floor there’s a small utility room and large built-in closets in the hallway, plus a small storage room under the stairs.
The upper floor has 3 bedrooms for children with a bathroom and a small storage room.
Then there’s the bonus attic floor, adding around 35 m² (375 sq ft):
1 shower bathroom, 1 master bedroom (without a hallway, directly adjacent to the stairs), and a technical/utility room. Next to the bedroom, there is a terrace 3 meters (10 feet) deep and 9 meters (30 feet) wide.
As long as there are only two children, or the first child plus two younger kids, one of the children’s rooms can be used as a home office. Otherwise, it might be possible to create a separate area in the attic with sliding doors if needed.
Whether or not to have a basement sounds like a casual question. How are the finances? If it’s not a problem anyway, I would always build one. If it were a problem, I doubt the original poster would even be asking—that’s my naive guess.
Regarding basements, my opinion is usually clear (for properties with slab-on-grade foundations, it’s a luxury to build one; for steeply sloped sites, it’s a luxury not to; and in between, it depends on the individual case). However, it seems that there is a specific concept behind the development of this housing area—whether it’s a good one or not. I might be wrong, but when considering the overall framework, I interpret the basements planned here as a clear signal not to dig into the marshy ground or other load-bearing soil layers.
Land developers—whether property developers or municipalities—often (though not always) have motives that contradict altruism, public welfare, and similar concerns by about 170 degrees.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Land developers—whether property developers or municipalities—often (though not always) have motives that contradict altruism, public welfare, and similar concerns by about 170 degrees.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Scout schrieb:
I see it differently. Yes, it’s a question everyone perceives differently. When I look at the designs by Tolentino
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Doppelhaushälfte-Möglichkeitsabschätzung-Ideen-hinweise.33444/
he is working with 10 x 6.50 m (33 x 21 ft) for 3 children, which is quite tight. 9 x 9 m (30 x 30 ft) would be somewhat larger, but not significantly more. Also, 9 x 9 m (30 x 30 ft) is a very inconvenient dimension where many standard sizes don’t fit well, leading to wasted space.
For five people, 9 x 9 m (30 x 30 ft) would be too cramped—but there is still the option of 10.5 x 9 m (34 x 30 ft), which would probably be acceptable without a basement. However, then there’s the question whether it might be better to build with a basement and have a larger terrace instead. Well—difficult. I think the original poster first needs to develop a complete room layout plan—what exactly is needed and whether it should accommodate 2 or 3 children.
As an example of what could be possible on a 9x9 with SG, based on the Villa Casa 131 by bgw (the garage windows still need to be relocated): 3 children’s bedrooms, a technical room, a utility room on the ground floor, a separable work nook, a storage room on each floor, and the roof terrace can even be accessed without going through the bedroom. The bedroom features a panoramic window facing outside, ideally with roller blinds.



kaho674 schrieb:
Also, 9x9 is a very inconvenient dimension, [...]
With 5 people, 9x9 would be too cramped for me – but there is still the option of 10.5 x 9. On the other hand, I strongly advise not to pass up the opportunity to exercise voluntary self-restraint within this building envelope. Nine by nine is typical of social villa construction – you’d practically need 3D with Dolby Surround and dollhouse furniture to mask it. For four people and modest needs, it’s sufficient, but more likely not if connected with "or." The staggered upper floor is far from being a penthouse at these dimensions, but it can still be made quite pleasant up there for correcting proofs or similar tasks.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Scout schrieb:
Just as an example of what could be done on a 9x9 with SG, based on the Villa Casa 131 from bgw Oh dear, I personally wouldn’t find that very desirable, not to mention I have my doubts about the exterior wall thicknesses. But let’s wait and see what the OP has in mind.
Similar topics