Hello dear forum members,
as mentioned in the introduction thread, here is the current status of our house planning.
The plot is located in the second row and is accessible via the courtyard of the front house (shared driveway).
Currently, there are existing buildings on the plot that need to be demolished.
We have already had a few planning discussions with construction companies, and honestly, I have to say I am shocked by their “professionalism.” We have now specifically selected companies where consultation takes place with architects and not, for example, a trained cook (no joke, that actually happened!). In addition, we are already annoyed by the question: “What do you want to build? A shell bungalow or a single-family house?” When we say: “Let’s work out the floor plan step by step and see which shape and roof pitch result, then we can still decide the official house type,” we only get strange looks. There were no independent ideas tailored to the plot... When asking what they would recommend, we just get a questioning look. I have to say, I expected more, but maybe it is normal that you have to bring the initial idea for the floor plan yourself...
Due to the current situation, further appointments with the construction companies are difficult to arrange. So we are using the time to plan ourselves. After tapping into your collective intelligence in the first step, we will then send our draft to the companies including the issues we still see. They will then have the chance to optimize and price our draft for the next consultation.
For us, the heart of the house is the ground floor; the upper floor follows from the ground floor plan (room layout, bathroom above utility room, windows, etc.). The upper floor is located on the exterior walls of the ground floor to the right (north) and bottom (east) of the plan, while to the left (south) and top (west) it is limited to the “main rectangle” or recessed by 1.5m (roughly 5 feet).
Attached you will find the completed questionnaire. Unanswered questions I have not included anymore.
We are very curious about your opinion!
Many thanks in advance.
Ypsi aus NI
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size approx. 700 sqm
Floor area ratio (FAR) 0.3
Site coverage ratio 0.3
Building window, building line and boundary 3m (10 feet) from the neighbor’s boundary
Number of floors 1 full story
open development
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type (Mediterranean) urban villa
Basement, floors 1.5 floors
Number of occupants, age 2 people + planned children
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor GF = 130-140 sqm (1400-1500 sq ft), UF = 50-60 sqm (540-650 sq ft)
Open or closed architecture open
Conservative or modern construction modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island kitchen island
Number of dining seats 6-8
Fireplace wood stove
Balcony, roof terrace possibly roof terrace (flat roof on both volumes)
Garage, carport double garage
House Design
Planned by: Do-it-Yourself
What do you like in particular? Why? Shape fits well into the plot, living area is somewhat separated, kitchen and dining table as central element
What do you dislike? Why? Is the staircase suitable? Is the entrance spacious enough? Can the private rooms on the ground floor be arranged this way?
Preferred heating technology: heat pump
Why did the design develop this way?
We consider the plot relatively narrow. Normally, a rectangular house shape would make sense, using the full width of the plot. But then you lose the best side (south). The floor plan was developed according to “form follows function” and we really like it now (I mean the L-shape, not necessarily the individual room layout).
An interesting idea is not to realize the two wings on the upper floor with a hip roof, but instead to have a flat roof to possibly create one or two roof terraces.
The original wish was for a bungalow, but we realized that it consumes too much floor space. A good compromise for us is to have the master bedroom and master bathroom on the ground floor, and the children’s rooms plus office upstairs.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Are there fundamental planning mistakes we have overlooked so far?
as mentioned in the introduction thread, here is the current status of our house planning.
The plot is located in the second row and is accessible via the courtyard of the front house (shared driveway).
Currently, there are existing buildings on the plot that need to be demolished.
We have already had a few planning discussions with construction companies, and honestly, I have to say I am shocked by their “professionalism.” We have now specifically selected companies where consultation takes place with architects and not, for example, a trained cook (no joke, that actually happened!). In addition, we are already annoyed by the question: “What do you want to build? A shell bungalow or a single-family house?” When we say: “Let’s work out the floor plan step by step and see which shape and roof pitch result, then we can still decide the official house type,” we only get strange looks. There were no independent ideas tailored to the plot... When asking what they would recommend, we just get a questioning look. I have to say, I expected more, but maybe it is normal that you have to bring the initial idea for the floor plan yourself...
Due to the current situation, further appointments with the construction companies are difficult to arrange. So we are using the time to plan ourselves. After tapping into your collective intelligence in the first step, we will then send our draft to the companies including the issues we still see. They will then have the chance to optimize and price our draft for the next consultation.
For us, the heart of the house is the ground floor; the upper floor follows from the ground floor plan (room layout, bathroom above utility room, windows, etc.). The upper floor is located on the exterior walls of the ground floor to the right (north) and bottom (east) of the plan, while to the left (south) and top (west) it is limited to the “main rectangle” or recessed by 1.5m (roughly 5 feet).
Attached you will find the completed questionnaire. Unanswered questions I have not included anymore.
We are very curious about your opinion!
Many thanks in advance.
Ypsi aus NI
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size approx. 700 sqm
Floor area ratio (FAR) 0.3
Site coverage ratio 0.3
Building window, building line and boundary 3m (10 feet) from the neighbor’s boundary
Number of floors 1 full story
open development
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type (Mediterranean) urban villa
Basement, floors 1.5 floors
Number of occupants, age 2 people + planned children
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor GF = 130-140 sqm (1400-1500 sq ft), UF = 50-60 sqm (540-650 sq ft)
Open or closed architecture open
Conservative or modern construction modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island kitchen island
Number of dining seats 6-8
Fireplace wood stove
Balcony, roof terrace possibly roof terrace (flat roof on both volumes)
Garage, carport double garage
House Design
Planned by: Do-it-Yourself
What do you like in particular? Why? Shape fits well into the plot, living area is somewhat separated, kitchen and dining table as central element
What do you dislike? Why? Is the staircase suitable? Is the entrance spacious enough? Can the private rooms on the ground floor be arranged this way?
Preferred heating technology: heat pump
Why did the design develop this way?
We consider the plot relatively narrow. Normally, a rectangular house shape would make sense, using the full width of the plot. But then you lose the best side (south). The floor plan was developed according to “form follows function” and we really like it now (I mean the L-shape, not necessarily the individual room layout).
An interesting idea is not to realize the two wings on the upper floor with a hip roof, but instead to have a flat roof to possibly create one or two roof terraces.
The original wish was for a bungalow, but we realized that it consumes too much floor space. A good compromise for us is to have the master bedroom and master bathroom on the ground floor, and the children’s rooms plus office upstairs.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Are there fundamental planning mistakes we have overlooked so far?
As far as I can tell, the garage is positioned in front of a side that otherwise has windows, and also in front of the entrance door (?)
Besides that, I agree with the recommendation not to design a driveway as a maneuvering training area.
“For cost reasons a hipped roof”—I hadn’t heard that joke before. A hipped roof if you have too much money?
Finally, a word on the angled wall sections: not every retro style comes back into fashion; this quote from 1980s apartment building culture is nowadays a negative point for resale. Originality should be used like a spice—not as a main course.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Besides that, I agree with the recommendation not to design a driveway as a maneuvering training area.
FloHB123 schrieb:Man plans, woman cleans
By the way, I still don’t understand why anyone would voluntarily build three bathrooms, all of which have to be cleaned...
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:I would say it’s basically a fundamental choice, like hybrid versus full electric in cars.
It’s probably going to be a huge difference compared to KfW40+ and KfW55.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:I had already understood the concept of avoiding a full upper floor by enlarging the ground floor, but...
The ground floor is a full story, similar to a bungalow.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:... I hadn’t noticed the set-back of the upper floor at first—otherwise I would have criticized it: it’s a double disadvantage, meaning a structural cost driver with the added downside of a poor appearance. If you like the Tuscan step design, however, I don’t understand the rejection of @haydee’s Schwörer house proposal.
Another floor (probably slightly set back) will then be built on top.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:
If the upper floor is set back (in terms of the outer walls lining up with the ground floor), then we could also imagine the upper floor having a flat roof? Or perhaps a hipped roof with reasonable slopes (a comfortable knee wall). The two volumes that are not built over on the upper floor could have a flat roof (with a terrace) or a hipped roof.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:
Whether a roof terrace goes on the two volumes or a hipped roof is chosen for cost reasons doesn’t affect the actual floor plan of the upper floor, right?
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:
As said, the goal is full ceiling height on the upper floor, so the staircase works properly. But since we are not allowed to build two full stories, the upper floor MUST be set back or smaller than the ground floor.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:So, which is it? If that’s all there is and no requirement to recess the upper floor, I would leave it like that. Terraces on the ground floor projections create areas attributable to the upper floor, which works against avoiding a full upper story.
It’s preferred to have no sloped ceilings on the upper floor, so full room height throughout. Since we only have the regulation for 1.5 full stories, otherwise open construction, we are quite flexible.
“For cost reasons a hipped roof”—I hadn’t heard that joke before. A hipped roof if you have too much money?
haydee schrieb:I fully agree with b. and c., but not with a.: KfW40+ without a specific reason is an unnecessary luxury edge for fans of eco-labels.
KfW 40+ is not the cost driver
The floor plan is the cost driver
Without roof pitch and knee wall you don’t even need to discuss the upper floor
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:Exactly the other way around: first the room program, then the upper floor, and afterwards the ground floor. Plan top-down, build bottom-up.
The ground floor is fixed, so the upper floor results from that.
Ypsi aus NI schrieb:Plenty of suggestions have come. “Don’t do that” is no less specific than “do this”!
I’m open to suggestions. In fact, I’m looking forward to them! Unfortunately, none have come so far...
Finally, a word on the angled wall sections: not every retro style comes back into fashion; this quote from 1980s apartment building culture is nowadays a negative point for resale. Originality should be used like a spice—not as a main course.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Y
Ypsi aus NI23 Mar 2020 13:51Hello 11ant,
unfortunately, I haven’t figured out yet how to quote passages as neatly as you just did...?!
So, I’ll do it like this:
The garage is attached to the house, but not in front of the entrance door; house width is about 14m (46 feet), garage width about 9m (30 feet). That leaves about 5m (16 feet) of free wall space where there is no garage in front. A straight driveway into the garage would certainly look nicer, but to allow that, the whole house would need to be pushed further back, which would sacrifice a lot of garden space.
Back to the upper floor: Sorry if that was unclear. The desire is to have full ceiling height upstairs, which is why the recessed option arises, because we are not allowed to build two full stories, so the upper floor must be smaller than the ground floor. We really like the style of the Mediterranean city villa, see the original post!
During the planning discussions, I specifically asked about higher costs due to structural engineering when the upper floor is recessed.
Answer: “That probably won’t be noticeable. You then have smaller rooms (in terms of floor area, so cheaper), but full height (no sloping ceilings).”
Building wall on wall would mean bigger rooms upstairs (higher costs), but with sloping ceilings. The costs are almost the same (architect’s estimate!).
Whether that is really true... The architect and other construction companies need to calculate this precisely...
A hip roof is definitely cheaper than a flat roof, right?
According to the architect, the roof terrace (not a covered loggia) does not count towards the living space calculation.
First the room program, then the upper floor, and after that the ground floor. Plan downwards, build upwards.
I am actually reading and hearing this for the very first time!
A "leave it be" approach only helps to a limited extent, as it offers no alternative solution except rightly criticizing.
The main problem with the layout of the bathroom and bedroom has often been (rightly) criticized, but suggestions have only come from two people.
I know it is not optimal myself. If I had another idea, I would have already incorporated it. But I don’t, so I am looking for suggestions.
If I considered the floor plan perfect, I would not be posting it here...
unfortunately, I haven’t figured out yet how to quote passages as neatly as you just did...?!
So, I’ll do it like this:
The garage is attached to the house, but not in front of the entrance door; house width is about 14m (46 feet), garage width about 9m (30 feet). That leaves about 5m (16 feet) of free wall space where there is no garage in front. A straight driveway into the garage would certainly look nicer, but to allow that, the whole house would need to be pushed further back, which would sacrifice a lot of garden space.
Back to the upper floor: Sorry if that was unclear. The desire is to have full ceiling height upstairs, which is why the recessed option arises, because we are not allowed to build two full stories, so the upper floor must be smaller than the ground floor. We really like the style of the Mediterranean city villa, see the original post!
During the planning discussions, I specifically asked about higher costs due to structural engineering when the upper floor is recessed.
Answer: “That probably won’t be noticeable. You then have smaller rooms (in terms of floor area, so cheaper), but full height (no sloping ceilings).”
Building wall on wall would mean bigger rooms upstairs (higher costs), but with sloping ceilings. The costs are almost the same (architect’s estimate!).
Whether that is really true... The architect and other construction companies need to calculate this precisely...
A hip roof is definitely cheaper than a flat roof, right?
According to the architect, the roof terrace (not a covered loggia) does not count towards the living space calculation.
First the room program, then the upper floor, and after that the ground floor. Plan downwards, build upwards.
I am actually reading and hearing this for the very first time!
A "leave it be" approach only helps to a limited extent, as it offers no alternative solution except rightly criticizing.
The main problem with the layout of the bathroom and bedroom has often been (rightly) criticized, but suggestions have only come from two people.
I know it is not optimal myself. If I had another idea, I would have already incorporated it. But I don’t, so I am looking for suggestions.
If I considered the floor plan perfect, I would not be posting it here...
Y
Ypsi aus NI23 Mar 2020 13:53Pinky0301 schrieb:
Regarding roof terraces, I can only say that if you have a garden, they are rarely or never used. In your case, it wouldn’t even be usable as a parent’s terrace if you sleep on the ground floor.Exactly! It would only be a nice extra for planned children!
Therefore, this would be the first cut. Still, I’m curious how much the additional cost for the roof terrace would be if everything else remained unchanged. The architects had a hard time giving an estimate and preferred to calculate it accurately and precisely. I actually think that’s good, it only increases my curiosity for an answer.
M
Matthew0323 Mar 2020 14:12Ypsi aus NI schrieb:
Is a hipped roof definitely cheaper than a flat roof?Nope.
Y
Ypsi aus NI23 Mar 2020 14:17Matthew03 schrieb:
Nope.Is that so? I mean a flat roof that can also be walked on and used as a terrace. Is such a roof still generally cheaper than a hipped roof?
Similar topics