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
saralina87 schrieb:
I believe that it is definitely possible to manage and live well with a 40m² (430 sq ft) open-plan space with standard requirements. Of course, you can get by with less space. But I would seriously question whether I want to pay off half a million for my entire life just to "manage."
S
saralina8710 May 2020 19:00kaho674 schrieb:
Of course, you can manage with less space. But I would seriously ask myself if I want to pay off half a million for my whole life just to "make do."I think you don’t quite understand—“making do” doesn’t necessarily mean settling for less. It means asking yourself what is realistic and weighing whether it is practical for you. Your budget plays a role, the plot of land is a factor, and ultimately personal taste as well.
A 40sqm (430 sq ft) living room, I believe, is not the norm, and even if it were, not everyone needs that much. It’s like the discussion about garden size, bedroom sizes, kitchen size… It’s subjective.
Therefore, I find comments like “my kitchen is this big and anything smaller would be too small” completely unnecessary—they don’t help anyone. They don’t offer anything constructive for the original poster but only reflect MY idea of a kitchen.
saralina87 schrieb:
In this regard, I find posts like "my kitchen is such and such size, and anything smaller would be too small" completely unnecessary – they don’t help anyone. They contain no constructive input for the original poster, just MY personal idea of a kitchen.Sorry, I see it differently. It is absolutely fine to share your own ideas about kitchen size as an example here. That’s what a forum is for: exchanging opinions and giving each other advice. It’s also perfectly okay if someone manages just fine with a 40m² (430 sq ft) open-plan space and adapts to it, but it’s equally okay to point out to the original poster that this might be quite tight for five people. Once the house is built, it’s difficult to add extra space (although not impossible).S
saralina8710 May 2020 19:29kaho674 schrieb:
It’s perfectly fine if someone manages with a 40m² (430 sq ft) open-plan room and makes it work, but it’s equally valid to point out to the original poster that this might be quite tight for five people. Is it actually too tight? On what basis do you make that judgment?
Or would it be too tight for you?
That’s the subtle but important difference between objective, constructive criticism and purely subjective opinion.
But enough off-topic from me now.
In my opinion, the L-shaped layout looks quite promising.
As I mentioned before, I appreciate every opinion. I have to keep in mind what it means when I decide for this or that option. Critical opinions or warnings are helpful in this process. At the same time, I am an adult and can make my own decisions as well as put the statements into context or perspective.
I will actually ask what 50cm (20 inches) more in depth would cost. That would be an additional 5m² (54 square feet). The first 6m² (65 square feet) increase cost 6,500. If I extrapolate at the same rate, that would be about +5,500 (or +12,000 compared to the original offer). However, it would also be necessary to consider whether the total floor area would still be approved by the building permit / planning permission authorities.
An interesting fact: 40m² (430 square feet) divided by 5 equals 8m² (86 square feet) – the required office area per person according to occupational health and safety regulations. That does not mean I want to force my children to work.
I will actually ask what 50cm (20 inches) more in depth would cost. That would be an additional 5m² (54 square feet). The first 6m² (65 square feet) increase cost 6,500. If I extrapolate at the same rate, that would be about +5,500 (or +12,000 compared to the original offer). However, it would also be necessary to consider whether the total floor area would still be approved by the building permit / planning permission authorities.
An interesting fact: 40m² (430 square feet) divided by 5 equals 8m² (86 square feet) – the required office area per person according to occupational health and safety regulations. That does not mean I want to force my children to work.
Tolentino schrieb:
As I mentioned before, I appreciate every opinion. I just need to keep in mind what it means when I decide for one option or another. Critical opinions or warnings are helpful in this process. At the same time, I am an adult and can make my own decisions and put the statements into context or perspective.
I will actually ask what 50cm (20 inches) extra depth would cost. That would add another 5 m² (54 sq ft). The first extra 6 m² (65 sq ft) cost 6,500, so if I calculate at the same rate, it would come to about +5,500 (or +12,000 compared to the original offer). However, it also needs to be considered whether this would still be allowed regarding the building footprint limits.
Interesting fact: 40 m² (430 sq ft) / 5 = 8 m² (86 sq ft) — area requirement per person for offices according to occupational health and safety guidelines. This doesn’t mean I want to force my children to work. I would not enlarge the entire house but extend the bay window area in the dining room and the children’s room above. I see better chances for an exemption if the building coverage ratio becomes tight.Similar topics