So, the corona lockdown and the final phase of my career have some positive sides:
I have two small gem plots of land that are finally going to be built on (one for ourselves, one for our oldest son – here is the first one). We have negotiated the plot for a long time, also with an architect (hmm), and as someone who is slightly indecisive, I’m losing clear overview with all the alternatives: which basic form fits best for the plot and for us?
As a first step, it would be great to get some help from you. Then next would be our detailed planning.
Plot size: 500m2 (5382 sq ft), southwest facing, 19.5m (64 ft) (street side) x 25.5m (84 ft); Berlin, very good location.
Very green inner area to the west, undevelopable. Quiet street.
Two challenges:
Front garden with 7.5 meters (25 ft) is very large,
Huge spruce tree around 25-30m (82-98 ft) high almost directly on the western plot boundary at the neighbor’s in the northwest corner.
Slope: no
Plot ratio (site coverage ratio): 0.25
Floor area ratio (FAR): none, max 2 floors plus roof
Building envelope, building line and boundary: keep 7.5m (25 ft) clear to the street, no parking place there; 3m (10 ft) setback to the three neighbors
Number of parking spaces
Number of storeys: max 2 storeys plus roof
Roof shape: planning office considers flat roofs undesirable, but in the surroundings such a roof has been approved.
Other requirements: “fit in” with the neighborhood
Clients’ requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: modern, but above all coherent and of high quality.
Basement, floors: basement technically difficult due to access and plot size; in the area, all houses have basements, mostly about 1 meter (3 ft) above ground. From our point of view, given the small plot, basement is inappropriate because of stairs leading to the small garden.
Two floors plus roof.
Number of occupants, ages: 3: father/mother/child, 60/51/12 years, father works from home.
Space requirements ground floor (GF), upper floor (UF): UF 3 rooms, a separate office room GF/UF conceivable but not mandatory. Steam sauna.
Office: family use or home office? Father’s home office.
Guest overnight stays per year: rare, child often.
Open or closed architecture: rather open, but more west and east as a unit, rather than east and kitchen (at the dining table homework, games, reading newspaper, etc.).
Conservative or modern construction: modern.
Open kitchen, cooking island: if it fits, but the dining table is actually the family center, even without eating, so a direct view of frying pans is not essential.
Number of dining seats: 5
Fireplace: rather yes, but in the last house it was pointless; abroad in France, however, it’s a dream.
Music/stereo wall: father is a music lover.
Balcony, roof terrace: rather yes.
Garage, carport: at least a carport on the right side (pardon: north side).
Utility garden, greenhouse: no.
Further wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be:
Preferably no “chocolate-box house” or “replacement villa.” But if conventional is better, that’s also OK.
Preliminary house plans
I am aware that we will probably need an architect and that the drafters from a construction company may not be enough. So far, we have not found one (who can plan eco-friendly construction).
Origin of the plans:
One from an architect, but with many promises contradicting the zoning plan, like a fitness studio in the basement with floor-level excavations up to the neighbor’s boundary.
- Planner from a construction company
- Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Each has a first “draft” of a GF and UF, knowing that “draft” is a bit exaggerated.
In random order:
Draft 4 (angled): adapts to the sun, the opening of space from small at the entrance to large in the living room, the transitions, the flow of rooms kitchen-dining-living room, possibilities for terrace all around east/living room, great unconventional children’s room with terrace.
Draft 3: always works with L-shape kitchen-dining-living, lots of garden to the west, narrow side to the southeast neighbor.
Draft 2 (corner): partly covered outdoor area, the neat UF, the UF terrace.
Draft 1 (“barn”): the aesthetic exterior, clear structure.
What do you not like? Why?
D4: kitchen too subordinate? Large living area needs subdivision… upstairs attractive but difficult.
D3: no structure of garden/terrace not derived from or shaped by house/plot.
D2: inside GF too fragmented? Kitchen not separated enough from dining area? UF not easy to design because of angle.
D1 barn: small garden to the west.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
We have no fixed price limit; it should be appropriate to the (small) but valuable plot. I expect an all-in cost of about 700,000 euros (approx. 700 K€).
Preferred heating technology: geothermal.
If you have to give up something, which details/expansions could you?
- Can give up: basement,
- Cannot give up: light, 3m (10 ft) ceiling heights on GF, views of nature, ecologically flawless construction (minimized pollutants).
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Which of the basic concepts should we pursue further for THIS plot? Or are there still too many options so we need to decide our favorite first?
Because of teenager: preferably smaller GF/UF and converted roof?
I have two small gem plots of land that are finally going to be built on (one for ourselves, one for our oldest son – here is the first one). We have negotiated the plot for a long time, also with an architect (hmm), and as someone who is slightly indecisive, I’m losing clear overview with all the alternatives: which basic form fits best for the plot and for us?
As a first step, it would be great to get some help from you. Then next would be our detailed planning.
Plot size: 500m2 (5382 sq ft), southwest facing, 19.5m (64 ft) (street side) x 25.5m (84 ft); Berlin, very good location.
Very green inner area to the west, undevelopable. Quiet street.
Two challenges:
Front garden with 7.5 meters (25 ft) is very large,
Huge spruce tree around 25-30m (82-98 ft) high almost directly on the western plot boundary at the neighbor’s in the northwest corner.
Slope: no
Plot ratio (site coverage ratio): 0.25
Floor area ratio (FAR): none, max 2 floors plus roof
Building envelope, building line and boundary: keep 7.5m (25 ft) clear to the street, no parking place there; 3m (10 ft) setback to the three neighbors
Number of parking spaces
Number of storeys: max 2 storeys plus roof
Roof shape: planning office considers flat roofs undesirable, but in the surroundings such a roof has been approved.
Other requirements: “fit in” with the neighborhood
Clients’ requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: modern, but above all coherent and of high quality.
Basement, floors: basement technically difficult due to access and plot size; in the area, all houses have basements, mostly about 1 meter (3 ft) above ground. From our point of view, given the small plot, basement is inappropriate because of stairs leading to the small garden.
Two floors plus roof.
Number of occupants, ages: 3: father/mother/child, 60/51/12 years, father works from home.
Space requirements ground floor (GF), upper floor (UF): UF 3 rooms, a separate office room GF/UF conceivable but not mandatory. Steam sauna.
Office: family use or home office? Father’s home office.
Guest overnight stays per year: rare, child often.
Open or closed architecture: rather open, but more west and east as a unit, rather than east and kitchen (at the dining table homework, games, reading newspaper, etc.).
Conservative or modern construction: modern.
Open kitchen, cooking island: if it fits, but the dining table is actually the family center, even without eating, so a direct view of frying pans is not essential.
Number of dining seats: 5
Fireplace: rather yes, but in the last house it was pointless; abroad in France, however, it’s a dream.
Music/stereo wall: father is a music lover.
Balcony, roof terrace: rather yes.
Garage, carport: at least a carport on the right side (pardon: north side).
Utility garden, greenhouse: no.
Further wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be:
Preferably no “chocolate-box house” or “replacement villa.” But if conventional is better, that’s also OK.
Preliminary house plans
I am aware that we will probably need an architect and that the drafters from a construction company may not be enough. So far, we have not found one (who can plan eco-friendly construction).
Origin of the plans:
One from an architect, but with many promises contradicting the zoning plan, like a fitness studio in the basement with floor-level excavations up to the neighbor’s boundary.
- Planner from a construction company
- Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Each has a first “draft” of a GF and UF, knowing that “draft” is a bit exaggerated.
In random order:
Draft 4 (angled): adapts to the sun, the opening of space from small at the entrance to large in the living room, the transitions, the flow of rooms kitchen-dining-living room, possibilities for terrace all around east/living room, great unconventional children’s room with terrace.
Draft 3: always works with L-shape kitchen-dining-living, lots of garden to the west, narrow side to the southeast neighbor.
Draft 2 (corner): partly covered outdoor area, the neat UF, the UF terrace.
Draft 1 (“barn”): the aesthetic exterior, clear structure.
What do you not like? Why?
D4: kitchen too subordinate? Large living area needs subdivision… upstairs attractive but difficult.
D3: no structure of garden/terrace not derived from or shaped by house/plot.
D2: inside GF too fragmented? Kitchen not separated enough from dining area? UF not easy to design because of angle.
D1 barn: small garden to the west.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
We have no fixed price limit; it should be appropriate to the (small) but valuable plot. I expect an all-in cost of about 700,000 euros (approx. 700 K€).
Preferred heating technology: geothermal.
If you have to give up something, which details/expansions could you?
- Can give up: basement,
- Cannot give up: light, 3m (10 ft) ceiling heights on GF, views of nature, ecologically flawless construction (minimized pollutants).
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Which of the basic concepts should we pursue further for THIS plot? Or are there still too many options so we need to decide our favorite first?
Because of teenager: preferably smaller GF/UF and converted roof?
At first glance, I really liked the design, but I took a closer look and noticed a few things...
- A walk-through void, which is quite unusual... in version 1, it’s located above the storage area; anyone who enjoys watching the supplies while lying down will feel right at home there.
- If my calculations are correct, you have 3.10 m (10 ft) for the table including chairs and clearance. The table is 1 m (3.3 ft), and chairs are 60-80 cm (24-31 inches).
- Parking space behind the house, just ONE spot; a second car doesn’t really fit despite the large area. The trash bins get a roof, but you have to walk around in the rain to reach the entrance. In version 2, that’s 35-40 m (115-130 ft) carrying every shopping bag to the kitchen or through the window?
- A giant balcony, primarily accessed via the bathroom or one of the rooms, with the small balcony then reached from another room through the hallway?
- Very important: two fixed glass corners, which you just can’t miss in a modern design :P
- An open, multifunctional office and passage area on the upper floor, but no bathroom access; instead, the wardrobe has only about 2 m (6.5 ft) of closet space. Depending on the knee wall height, your head could be at risk in bed as well.
- A shower in the ground floor WC—who is supposed to shower there after walking past the front door in underwear?
- Is there space for a washing machine, dryer, or drying rack?
These are just the points that stood out to me. No offense intended—I wanted to like it, but in my opinion, good design still has to be functional. I wouldn’t build a house just for the sake of it looking nice, but of course, everyone has to decide for themselves which compromises they are willing to make.
- A walk-through void, which is quite unusual... in version 1, it’s located above the storage area; anyone who enjoys watching the supplies while lying down will feel right at home there.
- If my calculations are correct, you have 3.10 m (10 ft) for the table including chairs and clearance. The table is 1 m (3.3 ft), and chairs are 60-80 cm (24-31 inches).
- Parking space behind the house, just ONE spot; a second car doesn’t really fit despite the large area. The trash bins get a roof, but you have to walk around in the rain to reach the entrance. In version 2, that’s 35-40 m (115-130 ft) carrying every shopping bag to the kitchen or through the window?
- A giant balcony, primarily accessed via the bathroom or one of the rooms, with the small balcony then reached from another room through the hallway?
- Very important: two fixed glass corners, which you just can’t miss in a modern design :P
- An open, multifunctional office and passage area on the upper floor, but no bathroom access; instead, the wardrobe has only about 2 m (6.5 ft) of closet space. Depending on the knee wall height, your head could be at risk in bed as well.
- A shower in the ground floor WC—who is supposed to shower there after walking past the front door in underwear?
- Is there space for a washing machine, dryer, or drying rack?
These are just the points that stood out to me. No offense intended—I wanted to like it, but in my opinion, good design still has to be functional. I wouldn’t build a house just for the sake of it looking nice, but of course, everyone has to decide for themselves which compromises they are willing to make.
One more thing that occurred to me while reading the initial post—without meaning to offend you—is whether it makes sense to consider living “as you age” and to incorporate the resulting factors into the design. For a build with "2x30," that would be an aspect I would focus on more strongly, guiding things like walking distances and avoiding sharp corners accordingly.
@borxx @ypg Yes, these are exactly the concerns I have as well:
1. The distances: from the parking space to the entrance and then to the kitchen – very long. From the entrance to the kitchen: long in both versions, all the way through the house. In version 1, with the kitchen on the left, you have to go around the utility room block from the entrance.
2. The requirement was: living and dining rooms partially connected/overlapping. This is implemented here, but at the cost of having no dining room worthy of the name, just a hallway-like area that does not work, more of a passageway. For me, the dining room is a dealbreaker.
So why is the staircase placed there? Why not further forward on the right side or at least along the right wall?
3. The huge balconies both narrow to a sharp point, making them unusable except maybe for flowers/plants. Is that even buildable and waterproof? An additional risk without any benefit...?
Or do you not share these concerns? How does it look from the outside? Don’t these balcony additions spoil the impression of the barn-like central section?
4. The first floor would probably need to have the study converted into the walk-in closet. The bathroom is quite small for this house, no sauna option. No bathroom on the second floor, but a shower on the ground floor??
5.
Very accurate, it might even exceed the allowable floor-area ratio. Too much space lost on the right side.
6. No window on the southwest side in version 2; the park view is really not possible there.
In summary, the architect at least did not choose the staircase location well, right?
@11ant these might indeed be valid concerns:
From the discussions it became clear that she prefers to leave the actual construction to a general contractor… and feels less responsible when fewer than 5-9 issues arise.
I still like the overall impression of the house, indeed it looks like a townhouse. Whether it should be somewhat more “villa-like” to fit the surroundings (old villas with red brick and white accents) might still have to be decided.
1. The distances: from the parking space to the entrance and then to the kitchen – very long. From the entrance to the kitchen: long in both versions, all the way through the house. In version 1, with the kitchen on the left, you have to go around the utility room block from the entrance.
2. The requirement was: living and dining rooms partially connected/overlapping. This is implemented here, but at the cost of having no dining room worthy of the name, just a hallway-like area that does not work, more of a passageway. For me, the dining room is a dealbreaker.
borxx schrieb:
If I’m not mistaken, you have 3.10m (10 ft 2 in) for the table including chairs and clearance. Table 1m (3 ft 3 in), chair 60-80cm (2-2.6 ft)
So why is the staircase placed there? Why not further forward on the right side or at least along the right wall?
3. The huge balconies both narrow to a sharp point, making them unusable except maybe for flowers/plants. Is that even buildable and waterproof? An additional risk without any benefit...?
Or do you not share these concerns? How does it look from the outside? Don’t these balcony additions spoil the impression of the barn-like central section?
4. The first floor would probably need to have the study converted into the walk-in closet. The bathroom is quite small for this house, no sauna option. No bathroom on the second floor, but a shower on the ground floor??
5.
borxx schrieb:
Parking space behind the house, ONE only, a second car doesn’t really fit despite the large area
Very accurate, it might even exceed the allowable floor-area ratio. Too much space lost on the right side.
6. No window on the southwest side in version 2; the park view is really not possible there.
In summary, the architect at least did not choose the staircase location well, right?
@11ant these might indeed be valid concerns:
11ant schrieb:
Apparently he confuses “creative” with “awkwardly original.” I would be frustrated and worry that site management won’t be his strong suit.
From the discussions it became clear that she prefers to leave the actual construction to a general contractor… and feels less responsible when fewer than 5-9 issues arise.
ypg schrieb:
PS: I don’t see a church here – I see a townhouse.
I still like the overall impression of the house, indeed it looks like a townhouse. Whether it should be somewhat more “villa-like” to fit the surroundings (old villas with red brick and white accents) might still have to be decided.
H
hanghaus200020 May 2021 11:07I seem to be missing the north arrow. Why is the parking space located so far in the back? Does the regulation only allow planning one parking space?
borxx schrieb:
Living "in old age"No offense intended, but this aspect is indeed somewhat neglected in the current design. There was an earlier draft by the architect that she discarded – in that version, according to our wishes, there was a guest/office/bedroom for old age on the ground floor... only the shower remains from that.hanghaus2000 schrieb:
I’m somehow missing the north arrow. Why is the parking space so far back? Is there a regulation that only allows planning one parking space? Sorry, attached again with the north arrow.
Why is the parking space so far back? No real reason, and not very practical, except that there is more width available there than directly next to the house. The only planning requirement is no parking space in front of the house within the 7.5m (25 feet) zone.
Similar topics