ᐅ Floor plan for a 180 m² urban villa with a basement, designed for a family with three children – what are your thoughts?

Kraj schrieb:

Slope: Approximately 2m (6.5 ft) between the east and west property boundaries, but varies significantly—see the survey document

Kraj schrieb:

Building envelope, building line, and boundary: 13x10m (43x33 ft) for one full floor and 10x10m (33x33 ft) for two full floors

Kraj schrieb:

At first glance, both the cloakroom and hallway can easily accommodate the staircase that is 30 cm (12 inches) wider, but the upper floor is less straightforward. So the staircase is still a ToDo.

Kraj schrieb:

Apparently, our floor plan isn’t that bad after all, since the criticism seems to focus more on budget and DIY work 🙂
Or are we misunderstanding this?

ypg schrieb:

But building extra large, covering the missing equity with a borrowed "muscle mortgage" that you depend on—I consider that unreasonable.

hampshire schrieb:

If you use what is generally considered "reasonable" as a benchmark, I agree with you.

hampshire schrieb:

Anyone taking on a project like this needs to be able to improvise and stay persistent when facing setbacks.

superzapp schrieb:

I would compare both options and calculate (or have calculated) as accurately as possible—from KfW55 to Passive House. If there is BAFA funding for both (35%), I would always choose a system controlled by a central unit (a requirement for the subsidy).

Also, include what you want anyway (e.g., photovoltaics?, controlled residential ventilation) in the calculations, and then see what the net cost is after the additional funding. But it might require an energy consultant for that...

I think it’s feasible when I consider how long other building projects have taken. But keep in mind that if you have to wait for ceilings to be finished or other trades, your timeline can get disrupted. Mixing outsourced services and self-work in a tight schedule requires a lot of discipline.

It’s definitely possible (with heavy equipment).

We’re doing the same, I think it fits. But flat duct is really expensive. Our 70mm (2.8 inches) round duct costs about €3/m (€3 per meter) 😉

I also consider that realistic. My brother-in-law did it for his son a few months ago, and I was there several times (not to help). It’s not that difficult if you have suitable plans and tools (unwinder, staple gun...)

That’s ambitious. I would schedule more time just to make sure all cables are labeled properly right away. Pulling cables into conduit takes time, and laying conduit itself is awkward.

I see you have a plan. But better build in some buffer here and there. Something always comes up 😀. Today I feel my “old bones” even though I was only on site for 6–7 hours doing light work (insulation and support battens). It’s different from office work—you shouldn’t underestimate the physical demands.

ypg schrieb:

The affordable townhouses have a hip roof, which falls under the hipped roof category. There is no knee wall, and due to the wooden structure, it can’t be converted into living space—at most, a crawl space for storage. What you are planning is one category more expensive: a) a timber frame that can be expanded and accessed, b) an additional knee wall, c) an extra staircase, d) a ceiling that must carry much more load than just storage, e) insulation that converts a cold roof into a warm roof, f) habitable finishing, g) some technical equipment like heating, h) a nice window instead of a roof hatch, i) higher scaffolding during construction, and k) exterior wall materials. And all that despite already planning a costly basement.

I looked at it: 2 users who don’t usually stand out in other floor plan discussions with counterexamples or alternative approaches.

1) Both children’s rooms lose 1 square meter (sq m) of living space each, and 2.60m (8.5 ft), not the 3.50m (11.5 ft) stated, is not something that can’t be improved.
2) The bathroom’s shape is like a storage room.
3) The pantry is wasted space.
These are obvious issues; no need to get into every detail. I could complain more, but besides that: the general contractor’s planner will copy this 1:1. They won’t advise or improve “what the customer wants is what they get.” The problem is: you see and plan this as laypeople, fascinated by the 3D button, and you no longer believe in the need for a professional architect because everything seems so simple. At least let the planner do their job and loosen the 10x10 grid that here only serves as an awkward corset, without being shown.

Does the active support also have the time on the days you need them? The support for the planned theoretical days must earn their own living... or are the people unemployed?

I totally get that. If my husband needs to work somewhere else on weekends, he is with me on the third weekend on a short trip :p. That might sound bad, but it’s reality—more than one weekend you cannot keep someone on the construction site. Free of charge, even less so. With good friends and family, maybe a week works. But nobody gives away their annual vacation. Therefore, I don’t see the €45,000 (now income) equity for the shell construction.

hampshire schrieb:

I have seen self-performance work work very well in 3 cases among friends in different constellations. Every weekend and many evenings were invested with a clear target and a lot of help from family and friends. That life sometimes comes to a halt is part of it, but in all cases, the partners managed very well together.

ypg schrieb:

Yes, it can work. But we have also often read here that it turned into a small disaster—with additional costs, because it was about painting work including filling... I don’t remember precisely. I personally witnessed a football team building a house with their craftsmen; it’s already many years ago... team dynamics make a lot possible. But building very large, filling missing equity with borrowed muscle power you depend on—that’s unreasonable. The good thing about the project is that the OP, meaning you @Kraj, can find out pretty early if it works. Then the helpers are still enthusiastic.

Still, you have to consider that helpers have their own jobs during the day. So as the builder, you often work mostly alone. Many people overlook this fact.

K1300S schrieb:

I’m afraid you do. If the overall project is calculated unrealistically, it’s not worth discussing the floor plan. To add my two cents: I like some parts (like the living/dining area), but others (such as the bathroom) are quite awful or unusable. And once you start cleaning up in one area, your (house of) cards collapses somewhere else. Not that 100m² (1,076 sq ft) of floor area is small, especially with basement and attic, but with this room program it’s rather tight. Things like storage space aren’t even considered.

haydee schrieb:

The pantry is too narrow. With a 15cm (6 inch) shelf, it’s extremely expensive storage space. Better add another cupboard to the kitchen. And what about the freezer? The cloakroom seems small for five people. Especially as you always have to go through the dirty zone and step over shoes to get to the toilet. The upstairs bathroom is an absolute no-go and will be buried with the modified staircase.

If the floor plan is oriented to north, swap parents’ and child 3’s rooms.

kbt09 schrieb:

I don’t see that at all, I see about 120cm (47 inches)... Where should the garage and parking spaces go? Some dimensions on the site plan would be helpful, currently I cannot identify the 880 m² (9,470 sq ft). It would be about 20x40m (66x131 ft), which don’t fit the roughly drawn 10x10 or 10x13m (33x33 or 33x43 ft). Does the triangle to the north belong?



What is this information based on? Could a house possibly be one-story in the I zone and two-story in the II zone, i.e., a stepped story?

First, point 1 must be correct, or you can already see problems in the upper floor, and so do I... serious ones 😉. So, at the moment, any further discussion about the floor plan is pointless. I would free myself from the square grid. For the attic, consider @ypg’s comments, and perhaps plan the basement so that the northwest corner can be raised slightly above ground level and the home office can be relocated there.

ypg schrieb:

It’s unreasonable to convert an attic over 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) for roughly €50,000 if the basement is not even fully used as living space. As you can see, nothing is visible from the basement—not because it was forgotten, but because basement space is not considered important (hobby room, laundry, and heating can be tucked in somehow). The slope should and can also be incorporated. If you don’t use the 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) in the basement optimally for your needs and calculation, I don’t know what else to say.

I think a professional needs to get involved to inform the builders about the options—also regarding the budget. This discussion feels drawn out and leads nowhere.

I keep wondering if the OP has any need to communicate or questions. He shows up but posts nothing. It’s his thread after all...

11ant schrieb:

I based my comments on the submitted house design and have not commented earlier because I don’t consider it ready for discussion: I cannot interpret the development plan myself since it is not provided and only partial details are discussed here, which seem odd in combination and suggest possible misunderstandings. The site plan lacks a legend and raises many questions; for example, red lines look like outline depictions of planned buildings but are not aligned with the building boundary lines. The plan excerpt is too small—it doesn’t even allow speculation about access. I cannot work like this—and not at all because of a supposed nearly perfect maturity of the design, which is the only reason I haven’t said more.