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
A
Alessandro30 Apr 2020 10:08For these conditions (budget and 5 people), I think it is well designed!
In your furnished plan, is the 2-seater sofa the same size as the 3-seater sofa?
In your case, a corner bench at the dining table would be suitable. This would also free up some space and allow you to make the table longer. Additionally, it can create a cozy atmosphere and provide extra storage if you choose one with a lift-up seat.
In your furnished plan, is the 2-seater sofa the same size as the 3-seater sofa?
In your case, a corner bench at the dining table would be suitable. This would also free up some space and allow you to make the table longer. Additionally, it can create a cozy atmosphere and provide extra storage if you choose one with a lift-up seat.
Alessandro schrieb:
In your furnished plan, is the two-seater sofa the same size as the three-seater? No, the dimensions are a bit hard to make out, but the two-seater is 164 cm (65 inches) and the three-seater is 204 cm (80 inches). The fact that they look similar in size is just an optical illusion.
Alessandro schrieb:
A corner bench would suit your dining area table. That way, you’d also gain some extra space. Plus, it can look cozy and provide additional storage if you make the seat liftable. Well, actually that’s a low dresser with drawers (Nordmela), not a TV stand. Of course, you could also have a "regular bench" with a lift-up seat, but I find drawers more flexible.
I think corner benches are kind of old-fashioned, sorry.
Even though you are right about saving space.
Tolentino schrieb:
Thanks for the initial suggestions. It doesn’t seem to be an absolute disaster, right...?
What can you say about it? For me, it would be a complete nightmare because I would never want to live so cramped. A lifetime of constantly turning around to avoid bumping into someone or something. Constantly putting every little thing exactly in its place, otherwise chaos breaks out immediately. How you plan to manage with three children and this entrance area is beyond me. At least I would try to rotate the staircase, so you wouldn’t immediately trip over the first step when entering the front door while the fifth person is already pushing from behind. However, then it gets problematic again with the bedroom door on the upper floor – way too tight.
Otherwise, this is a standard model from a catalog – compressed to your size and with additional rooms. The only highlights in the form of the stairwell window you’re planning to cut due to the budget. There’s nothing more to say about that, except maybe the south-facing side is idealized with three floor-to-ceiling doors. But in front of the sofa, that doesn’t make sense. The question is – will you keep it that way anyway?
I also wouldn’t design the kitchen as you plan. You’ll be running yourself exhausted carrying groceries.
My conclusion is: Your wishes are far too big for the plot, the house, and the budget. But there is no alternative. So what can you do? You probably won’t change your mind anyway.
kaho674 schrieb:
I would at least try to rotate the staircase so you don’t immediately stumble over the first step as you enter the front door, especially if the fifth person is pushing from behind. However, that creates another serious problem with the bedroom door on the upper floor – it becomes too tight. I like that suggestion and will ask about it. Your own contradiction confuses me. Isn’t that already an issue with the bathroom door? So why would having the bedroom door in front of the exit be worse than the bathroom door? I’d say the bathroom door is probably used more often than the bedroom door. So wouldn’t the rotated staircase be actually better upstairs as well?
kaho674 schrieb:
That the south-facing view is tinted with three floor-to-ceiling doors. But in front of the sofa, that doesn’t make sense. The question is – will you keep it like that anyway? Yes, at least in front of the sofa it still makes sense because my partner has a lot of plants that need light, and she could place them there. Even if we wouldn’t step outside through that door...
The door by the kitchen is more debatable (although then we’d lose symmetry – which I don’t care about, but unfortunately my partner does...)
kaho674 schrieb:
I wouldn’t plan the kitchen the way you have it. You’ll really be running yourself off your feet carrying groceries. Do you have a suggestion? I assume moving the open side more toward the top of the plan so the walking distance is shorter?
And yes, you’re right otherwise. There are various constraints that combined will lead to a house that isn’t perfect.
But honestly, until about six months ago, I wasn’t even thinking about building a house. Now the opportunity has come up, and we are just incredibly happy to even be considering building. Like I said, living in the big city, you develop very different expectations. Just having a garden at the house is already something special.
The waiting lists for allotment gardens, where you sometimes have to drive several kilometers (miles) are often just as long.
Tolentino schrieb:
And yes, otherwise you are right. There are various constraints that, when combined, will lead to a less-than-perfect house. I understand.
We were also really happy to finally have a plot of land. When we started planning, it turned out that we couldn’t design the proposed house (including the floor plan) because the building envelope is too small for a 12.5 m (41 feet) wide house. We could change the orientation, but combined with the double carport, it looks quite awkward and we lose a lot of garden space.
Building a house often feels like a series of compromises for the average person. Small plots, strict building regulations (building permit / planning permission), and high construction costs can make building a house a stressful adventure.
@Tolentino It also depends on the current living situation and how you manage it. I haven’t read the entire thread. So in part, this might be complaining at a very high level, and maybe this floor plan is practical for you—even if it’s not your ideal solution.
PyneBite schrieb:
There is always the question of the current living situation and how to manage it. I haven’t read the entire thread. So, in part, this comes across as complaining at a very high level, and maybe this floor plan is practical for you—even if it’s not the ideal solution. Yes, these discussions sometimes stretch over this thread and a previous one, which was about a semi-detached house. People have different expectations, and for me, a certain pragmatism and tolerance have developed. Still, I’m grateful for the many warnings from @kaho674, @ypg, and others. They make you think carefully again and realize what you are actually deciding on and what those compromises mean. You don’t blindly walk off a cliff, but at least into a cave. For someone who has lived without shelter in the wild until now, this is a huge step forward. Having protection from rain, cold, and wild animals is really great. Sure, one might get annoyed that the smoke from the fire doesn’t vent properly and the cave smells musty, but hey! It’s better than freezing to death or being eaten by hyenas.
The high civilization folks in their clay huts with chimneys, animal husbandry, and farming can just turn up their noses at that.
Okay, this analogy sort of ran away with me, but I think you get what I mean.