ᐅ Initial floor plan draft on graph paper: hillside, basement, plus two stories.
Created on: 2 Jan 2021 13:09
M
majuhenema
Disclaimer:
After a long search, we have finally found a plot of land. It is not easy to build on because of a steep slope, but it also has a unique appeal since the north and south sides are undeveloped and should remain so at least in the medium term (both adjacent plots belong to the neighbors uphill). Additionally, we have views of the river and the vineyards beyond to the north, east, and southeast. Therefore, we plan to build two floors above the basement, to reach higher elevation and to have ground-level access to the garden from the first floor.
The shown design is our “dream concept.” We noted our spatial ideas and wishes and sketched them on graph paper. Each square corresponds to 1 meter (3 feet). Our budget excluding the land and landscaping is set at 500,000 euros.
Zoning and Restrictions
Plot size: 682 sqm (approximately 7,338 sq ft)
Slope: Yes, about 6 m (20 feet) downhill from west to east
Gap in an old residential area, no formal zoning plan available, similar houses already built
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building category: open, modern, clearly structured, roof form depending on practicality (height, appearance, photovoltaic panels)
Basement, floors: Basement/entrance level + 2 upper floors
Number of occupants: 2 adults, both 31 years old, no children yet, 2 children’s rooms planned
Space requirements:
Basement: entrance area, office, garage, storage room, technical room
1st floor: living room, dining area, kitchen, utility room, guest toilet, pantry
2nd floor: 2 children’s bedrooms, children’s bathroom, master bathroom, master bedroom, walk-in closet
Occasional guest sleeping: 4 per year (sofa bed in office or utility room)
Open or closed architecture: open
Conservative or modern building style: modern
Open kitchen with island: open, large + island
Seating capacity for dining table: large table (2.40 m x 1 m (8 ft x 3 ft)), seats 6–8 people
Fireplace: optional (not planned due to cost-benefit consideration)
Music/stereo wall: turntable in living/dining area
Balcony, roof terrace: balcony on the east side on the 2nd floor would be great for the location and views
Garage, carport: double garage in the basement, 2 parking spaces in front
Additional wishes/special features/daily routine:
The north and south sides of the plot will remain undeveloped in the short and medium term. To the east is a quiet street (cul-de-sac, with 3 houses beyond us). From north through east to south, there is a river view, so we would like to have access to at least a narrow balcony on the 1st and 2nd floors in those directions. The garden is planned on the south side of the property.
The cooking, dining, and living areas should be as spacious and bright as possible. The other rooms should be practical.
House Design
Who designed it: clients themselves – do-it-yourself
What do you like most? And why?
Clear layout, large living area, children’s bathroom included
What do you dislike? And why?
Staircase preference is a half-landing staircase, but it would be too large for the current plan
Price estimation?
Personal price limit for the house including fixtures and fittings: 500,000 euros excluding landscaping, preferably through a general contractor
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you have to compromise, on which details or features
-can you give up:
fireplace, possibly the balcony on the 2nd floor (reluctantly), smaller living/dining area
-can you not give up:
children’s bathroom, open and spacious design, office, utility room
Why has the design developed the way it is?
The design is based on the spatial concept and orientation on the plot. The house should be placed as far northeast as possible to maximize garden space on the south and west sides.
Note: The basement’s red-shaded area is planned so the house does not appear like a tower. The basement is designed to be wider for aesthetic reasons. Additionally, the basement ceiling is planned to project about 2 m (6.5 ft) to create a canopy and serve as a terrace for the 1st floor.
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
1. Is the floor plan suitable as a planning basis for builders/architects?
2. What works well/less well/not at all?
After a long search, we have finally found a plot of land. It is not easy to build on because of a steep slope, but it also has a unique appeal since the north and south sides are undeveloped and should remain so at least in the medium term (both adjacent plots belong to the neighbors uphill). Additionally, we have views of the river and the vineyards beyond to the north, east, and southeast. Therefore, we plan to build two floors above the basement, to reach higher elevation and to have ground-level access to the garden from the first floor.
The shown design is our “dream concept.” We noted our spatial ideas and wishes and sketched them on graph paper. Each square corresponds to 1 meter (3 feet). Our budget excluding the land and landscaping is set at 500,000 euros.
Zoning and Restrictions
Plot size: 682 sqm (approximately 7,338 sq ft)
Slope: Yes, about 6 m (20 feet) downhill from west to east
Gap in an old residential area, no formal zoning plan available, similar houses already built
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building category: open, modern, clearly structured, roof form depending on practicality (height, appearance, photovoltaic panels)
Basement, floors: Basement/entrance level + 2 upper floors
Number of occupants: 2 adults, both 31 years old, no children yet, 2 children’s rooms planned
Space requirements:
Basement: entrance area, office, garage, storage room, technical room
1st floor: living room, dining area, kitchen, utility room, guest toilet, pantry
2nd floor: 2 children’s bedrooms, children’s bathroom, master bathroom, master bedroom, walk-in closet
Occasional guest sleeping: 4 per year (sofa bed in office or utility room)
Open or closed architecture: open
Conservative or modern building style: modern
Open kitchen with island: open, large + island
Seating capacity for dining table: large table (2.40 m x 1 m (8 ft x 3 ft)), seats 6–8 people
Fireplace: optional (not planned due to cost-benefit consideration)
Music/stereo wall: turntable in living/dining area
Balcony, roof terrace: balcony on the east side on the 2nd floor would be great for the location and views
Garage, carport: double garage in the basement, 2 parking spaces in front
Additional wishes/special features/daily routine:
The north and south sides of the plot will remain undeveloped in the short and medium term. To the east is a quiet street (cul-de-sac, with 3 houses beyond us). From north through east to south, there is a river view, so we would like to have access to at least a narrow balcony on the 1st and 2nd floors in those directions. The garden is planned on the south side of the property.
The cooking, dining, and living areas should be as spacious and bright as possible. The other rooms should be practical.
House Design
Who designed it: clients themselves – do-it-yourself
What do you like most? And why?
Clear layout, large living area, children’s bathroom included
What do you dislike? And why?
Staircase preference is a half-landing staircase, but it would be too large for the current plan
Price estimation?
Personal price limit for the house including fixtures and fittings: 500,000 euros excluding landscaping, preferably through a general contractor
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you have to compromise, on which details or features
-can you give up:
fireplace, possibly the balcony on the 2nd floor (reluctantly), smaller living/dining area
-can you not give up:
children’s bathroom, open and spacious design, office, utility room
Why has the design developed the way it is?
The design is based on the spatial concept and orientation on the plot. The house should be placed as far northeast as possible to maximize garden space on the south and west sides.
Note: The basement’s red-shaded area is planned so the house does not appear like a tower. The basement is designed to be wider for aesthetic reasons. Additionally, the basement ceiling is planned to project about 2 m (6.5 ft) to create a canopy and serve as a terrace for the 1st floor.
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
1. Is the floor plan suitable as a planning basis for builders/architects?
2. What works well/less well/not at all?
M
majuhenema18 Feb 2021 23:03askforafriend schrieb:
@majuhenema do you have an update for us? Of course, gladly! 🙂
The two general contractors (GCs) mentioned are currently preparing their quotes. GC1 addresses almost everything, asks targeted questions where there are any issues, and even has ideas we hadn’t thought of.
Planning with GC2 is proceeding more slowly and is somewhat delayed for various reasons. In our region, at least among the homebuilders we have spoken to, they have a reputation for being somewhat expensive but offering very high quality.
Things with GC3 are moving very slowly. We wanted to schedule an initial meeting at the beginning of January. This was postponed to mid-February due to the lockdown. Now the appointment has been pushed further to mid-March. When we asked about a phone or even a video conference initial meeting, there was no response. Well, at least their website is new now. Based on these reasons alone, I would have ruled them out. However, good friends built with them and were very satisfied.
The two prefabricated house providers are completely out.
As soon as the first offers with the specific plans come in, I will get back to you.
M
majuhenema10 Mar 2021 22:30I would like to provide an update and would appreciate your assessment. Specifically, this concerns GU1 from the above post.
As mentioned, all discussions with the project manager were on an equal footing and very constructive. He calculated our version presented here, which has approximately 197 sqm (2,120 sq ft) without a basement (with wall thickness 0, so based solely on the desired living area), and made us an offer in mid-January of 635,000 euros plus 71,000 euros for support measures. This offer did not include a detailed floor plan.
In a further discussion, we explored cost-saving options. We removed the balcony on the upper floor, reduced the very spacious open plan area by 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in width, and replaced three lift-and-slide doors (which he said were very expensive, about 10,000 euros each) with regular patio doors or fixed glass elements. On-site, he calculated a price of 597,000 euros for 185 sqm (1,991 sq ft) without a basement. The cost-saving ideas came from both us and him. We fully agreed with all of these changes.
Afterwards, we reduced this floor plan again, saving another 4 sqm (43 sq ft). An employee converted our current "desired floor plan" into a "draftsperson’s floor plan." To our pleasant surprise, our "desired floor plan with wall thickness 0" translated very well into a “real floor plan,” logically enlarged by the wall thicknesses. We were happy to approve this design, which totals 177.5 sqm (1,911 sq ft) without a basement, for a precise quote.
To our disappointment, last week we received a new written offer, this time including a floor plan. Its designs bear little resemblance to our approved draft, and the floor plan has awkward dimensions in several places. Overall, everything is significantly smaller. The living area now amounts to only 159 sqm (1,711 sq ft) without a basement. What we don’t understand is that the offer price is still 597,000 euros plus support measures, the same as for our second largest variant, which was 24 sqm (258 sq ft) bigger.
This situation leaves me quite puzzled. To compare: the first quote for 197 sqm (2,120 sq ft) including a balcony and three lift-and-slide doors was 635,000 euros, while the 159 sqm (1,711 sq ft) version without a balcony and without lift-and-slide doors is quoted at 597,000 euros. There is a clear discrepancy between the price and the actual living experience.
I am now wondering whether the first offer was simply planned too aggressively or if the latest offer has been miscalculated?
As mentioned, all discussions with the project manager were on an equal footing and very constructive. He calculated our version presented here, which has approximately 197 sqm (2,120 sq ft) without a basement (with wall thickness 0, so based solely on the desired living area), and made us an offer in mid-January of 635,000 euros plus 71,000 euros for support measures. This offer did not include a detailed floor plan.
In a further discussion, we explored cost-saving options. We removed the balcony on the upper floor, reduced the very spacious open plan area by 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in width, and replaced three lift-and-slide doors (which he said were very expensive, about 10,000 euros each) with regular patio doors or fixed glass elements. On-site, he calculated a price of 597,000 euros for 185 sqm (1,991 sq ft) without a basement. The cost-saving ideas came from both us and him. We fully agreed with all of these changes.
Afterwards, we reduced this floor plan again, saving another 4 sqm (43 sq ft). An employee converted our current "desired floor plan" into a "draftsperson’s floor plan." To our pleasant surprise, our "desired floor plan with wall thickness 0" translated very well into a “real floor plan,” logically enlarged by the wall thicknesses. We were happy to approve this design, which totals 177.5 sqm (1,911 sq ft) without a basement, for a precise quote.
To our disappointment, last week we received a new written offer, this time including a floor plan. Its designs bear little resemblance to our approved draft, and the floor plan has awkward dimensions in several places. Overall, everything is significantly smaller. The living area now amounts to only 159 sqm (1,711 sq ft) without a basement. What we don’t understand is that the offer price is still 597,000 euros plus support measures, the same as for our second largest variant, which was 24 sqm (258 sq ft) bigger.
This situation leaves me quite puzzled. To compare: the first quote for 197 sqm (2,120 sq ft) including a balcony and three lift-and-slide doors was 635,000 euros, while the 159 sqm (1,711 sq ft) version without a balcony and without lift-and-slide doors is quoted at 597,000 euros. There is a clear discrepancy between the price and the actual living experience.
I am now wondering whether the first offer was simply planned too aggressively or if the latest offer has been miscalculated?
M
majuhenema10 Mar 2021 22:50ypg schrieb:
Could you please show the differences?Gladly! I'll split it into two posts. First, the "good floor plan," which the three of us developed together on-site at the desk, and then the "too small floor plan," which was attached to the actual offer.
M
majuhenema10 Mar 2021 22:51This is the "good floor plan," with only minor issues to note.
M
majuhenema10 Mar 2021 22:53This is the floor plan for the specific offer priced at 597,000 euros. We don't like the basement, the open room, or the children's bedrooms.
Similar topics