ᐅ Location of a city villa or detached single-family house on a 500 m² rectangular plot

11ant schrieb:

Regarding option 4, check this out: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/efh-Flachdach-waldrandlage-175-qm.30201/page-15#post-390926 – recently @kbt09 illustrated the issue of headroom over built-in stair landings again.

Thanks, that had already been pointed out to me by the construction manager on a completely different design (the first interior floor plan from #79). Back then, I had half of the staircase built over, not just the first two steps. But thanks for the reminder—I will emphasize that again when passing it on. We might need to build one or two more rows of bricks higher, at least at the bottom. We’ve already discussed that since the floor structure on the ground floor will be 25cm (10 inches) thick. The ceiling height according to the construction specification is only 275cm (108 inches). I told him to factor in the potential extra cost for one or two rows right away. Although, we were again surprised how open a 2.5m (8 ft 2 in) clear ceiling height can feel in show homes. But for the stair landing, it would definitely be important.
What do you think, how much could one extra brick row cost for a gross floor area of 88m² (947 sq ft)?

kaho674 schrieb:

Is there maybe still a way?

No, she meant behind the 5m (16 ft) strip like here https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/lage-stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/. But we excluded that early on due to the building restrictions on the 5m (16 ft) strip with outbuildings.
Besides, I would also rule that out because then I’d have to move further away from the driveway strip, leaving less and less garden space.

kaho674 schrieb:

You definitely wanted 3 kids’ bedrooms and now you’re only building 2 that can be split later?

When I had planned for three kids’ bedrooms, each was about 11.x to at most 12m² (around 120 to 129 sq ft), which is now the current bedroom size and is considered too small. My wife said that the two younger kids, who will be closer in age, would have to share a larger room instead. So, we are not following your recommendation to have one less child’s room; instead, we’re accepting an imposition on our children upfront. We’re hoping to share responsibility for that poor decision with them later on—hopefully when they’re at least old enough to claim they understood the consequences. They’ll just have to get along. If not, they can swap rooms with the oldest one for a few weeks, and eventually they’ll appreciate it.

kaho674 schrieb:

It would be much neater to split the kids’ bedrooms exactly in the middle and add two walls later.

That’s why it’s not a 50/50 split but asymmetric—for the smaller room (which is still bigger than before) the oldest can sleep there, and the larger room will house the two younger children who are closer in developmental stages.
I also imagine it’s simply easier logistically if only one wall needs to be built later, maybe with an added door, rather than having to demolish or move an additional wall.

kaho674 schrieb:

Putting a wardrobe in the upstairs hallway is nonsense. It’s already too narrow there.

Storage! — It won’t be built in, so we can still consider if that fits or if a slim dresser would make more sense. If the large room is ever split, a door must go there anyway, so then it wouldn’t be possible anymore.

kaho674 schrieb:

You can partially place a coat rack under the stairs, etc.

Yes, I also think I would have something suitable built under the stairs. I just made it visible in the design program since the stairs always cover whatever is supposed to be under or above.

kaho674 schrieb:

Above all, the living room door must open into the living room—otherwise, it’s door chaos immediately.

Ah, good point, I’ll keep that in mind. The living room has quite some space there.

kaho674 schrieb:

I really don’t like the side entrance.

If I ask about something specific now, you’d probably say: everything! But if you had to name your top three points, what would they be? And is there any aspect you actually like?

kaho674 schrieb:

But maybe there are other solutions.

That’s exactly what I’m here for!

Thanks and best regards

Tolentino

Increasing the height won't help at all, because then you would need an additional step... On the contrary. With less height, you can omit a step. But nowadays, hardly anyone builds with ceiling heights under 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in).

Ceiling height 275 cm (108 inches)? That does not result in a clear room height of 250 cm (98 inches), and Katja has already pointed out the rest.

I don’t find having two children in the large children’s room and one in the smaller one very appealing. Of course, it’s your decision, and if that’s what you want, that’s fine. But offering the children the choice between Scylla and Charybdis with the excuse that it’s their own decision is more of a mockery than a real option.

kaho674 schrieb:

Increasing the height won’t help at all, because then you need one more step anyway... On the contrary, with less height you can omit one step. But nowadays hardly anyone builds with ceiling heights under 2.50 meters (8 ft 2 in).

Important note: Even with the same slope, the staircase would only become longer, not higher at the front. Is it possible to make the stairs “shallower” at the beginning and steeper at the end (after the bend)? Is something like that feasible?

No way... irregular riser heights on stairs cause accidents.

And at the stair exit, you also don’t have any extra space for an additional step.