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
I wouldn’t worry about cabinets along the walls.
Is the bathroom upstairs planned to be set up like that? I think the bathtub is in the way when you enter. Also, it reduces the space in front of the sink, which is probably essential for a large family. Is there any way to rearrange it?
Is the bathroom upstairs planned to be set up like that? I think the bathtub is in the way when you enter. Also, it reduces the space in front of the sink, which is probably essential for a large family. Is there any way to rearrange it?
Pinky0301 schrieb:
I wouldn’t worry about having cabinets against the walls.
Is the bathroom upstairs going to be set up like that? I think the bathtub is in the way as you enter. Also, it reduces the space in front of the washbasin, which is probably essential for a large family. Is it possible to rearrange anything there? Yes, we have already discussed that. The current idea is to simply move the bathtub into the corner by the window. The builder didn’t want to swap the bathtub and washbasin, likely due to plumbing routes.
Tolentino schrieb:
Posting again here because you reply so quickly:
So, here are the additional costs:
Double-wing door in the living room 580.00€
Increase in ceiling height on the ground floor shell from 2.75 m to 3.00 m (9.02 ft to 9.84 ft) 3,800.00€
Windows cannot be higher than 2.25 m (7.38 ft). The large stairwell window is also not preferred by the general contractor, but apparently they are still waiting for an offer.
So it makes sense to stick to 2.75 m (9.02 ft) again, which would make the finished ceiling height in the living room 2.55 m (8.37 ft), and the windows at 2.25 m (7.38 ft) would be high enough.
And maybe the staircase step wouldn’t be so bad anymore, since one step could be saved?
If I were you, I would consider increasing the living area rather than just raising the ceiling height!
If I understand correctly, your floor structure is 20 cm (8 inches) thick. Why so high?
On the ground floor, we have a finished ceiling height of 2.70 m (8.86 ft), but our rooms are considerably larger compared to yours. Our living/dining room is about 60 sqm (645 sq ft).
Upstairs we have 2.60 m (8.53 ft), which is perfectly sufficient for normally sized rooms; the children’s rooms are 18 sqm (194 sq ft).
Baufie schrieb:
If I were you, I would focus more on increasing the living area rather than raising the ceiling height!
I feel the same way, but the floor area ratio is quite low here – you would need to check how much the building authority would allow. However, I also think adding extra height is wasted money, especially since the staircase would have to be extended, complicating everything. A central bay window in the middle of the living room would relieve the situation much more effectively – both downstairs and upstairs – even if it might seem a bit old-fashioned.
Baufie schrieb:
If I were you, I’d focus more on increasing the living area rather than raising the ceiling height!
If I understand correctly, your floor construction is 20cm (8 inches) thick. Why so high?
We have a finished ceiling height of 2.70m (8 ft 10 in) on the ground floor, but our rooms are significantly larger compared to yours. Our living/dining area is almost 60sqm (645 sq ft).
Upstairs, we have 2.60m (8 ft 6 in), which is perfectly sufficient for normal-sized rooms; the children’s rooms are 18sqm (194 sq ft). We agreed with the architect and general contractor on half a brick length over the standard. That means a finished ceiling height of 2.65m to 2.70m (8 ft 8 in to 8 ft 10 in).
Accordingly, the floor construction is even 20-25cm (8-10 inches) thick.
Why is that? I don’t know the exact details; I was just told that with insulation, underfloor heating pipes, screed, and the finished floor, it adds up to 20-25cm (8-10 inches).
Honestly, I consider a good 40sqm (430 sq ft) already quite large. But in the end, of course, these are just numbers.
kaho674 schrieb:
I feel the same way, but the floor space ratio is quite low here – how flexible the building authority (building permit / planning permission) is on this would have to be tested. Still, I think additional ceiling height is money wasted, especially since the stairs would get longer and complicate the layout. A central bay window in the middle of the living room would ease the situation much more – downstairs and upstairs – even if it seems a bit old-fashioned. Yes, that would need to be looked into. I’m not opposed to bay windows per se, but I don’t really love them either. Clearly, a bay window would help the middle children’s room upstairs. Downstairs, I’m not even sure it’s really necessary.
Pinky0301 schrieb:
The furniture in the living area isn’t the planned one, right? We already saw a layout that suited the room size well. Correct, this time the architect didn’t use dollhouse furniture but rather something closer to real-life dimensions.
The more intended options here (all measurements are from real furniture) make the passage to the terrace look less like a slalom course:
- Current self-designed layout, open-plan only, furnished with a peninsula kitchen: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Lage-Stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/post-398518
- Current self-designed layout, open-plan only, furnished with L-shaped kitchen variant 1: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Lage-Stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/post-398716
- L-shaped kitchen variant 2: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Lage-Stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/post-398733
- Current design from the architect: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Lage-Stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/post-401660
Regards and happy Mother’s Day to all who celebrate it.
Tolentino
Similar topics