ᐅ Single-Family Home Design on a Sloping Site (2,700 sqm Plot) – Experiences / Discussion
Created on: 3 Jun 2021 09:00
B
Bamboochaa
Hello everyone. I would like to introduce our upcoming project below. It is meant to inspire discussion and serve as documentation.
Plot size: approximately 2,700 sqm (29,000 sq ft), of which about 1,200 sqm (13,000 sq ft) is forested area (marked in green). Demolition of the current building: house number 33.
The plot is located at the end of a cul-de-sac (NRW). There is no zoning plan. The planned building area has about a 2 m (6.5 ft) height difference. The slope declines towards the east/south.
Maximum height/limits: Ridge height of neighboring property approx. 9 m (30 ft).
We have largely given the architect free rein (exclusions: flat roof, hip/pyramid roof, or city villa/Bauhaus style).
Two adults (31 + 27), no children yet. Planned maximum living area is 160-170 sqm (1,720–1,830 sq ft).
Ground floor: spacious living and dining area. Large kitchen. Small shower/WC on ground floor, small storage/utility room with mudroom function.
Upper floor: master bedroom, two children’s rooms, separate dressing room, one bathroom. Guest room either in basement or upper floor.
Basement: utility/technical room, fitness room, office/guest room, small WC (due to direct garden access).
Only a small office is needed, as no home office work is planned.
Balcony, roof terrace: unnecessary due to the garden.
Garage, carport: double garage plus 2 parking spaces.
Small outdoor sauna planned for the future.
House design (In the 3D plan, I removed two walls on the south side of the ground floor so you can see inside the house. Window planning is not yet included in the design.)
Ground floor: We personally like the layout 100%.
Upper floor: We find it almost perfect. The small open space is nice. The children’s rooms are next to each other. The parents’ room is somewhat separated. The upper floor also provides shading for the ground floor terrace area. (Balcony is unnecessary and will be removed.)
What do we not like? Why?
The floor plan is currently a bit too large. The plan was for 160-170 sqm (1,720–1,830 sq ft) of living space (we actually find this size almost too big, especially if we do not have children). The current floor plan shows about 190 sqm (2,045 sq ft) living space plus basement (approx. 6 m x 13 m (20 ft x 43 ft) + 6.5 m x 6.5 m (21 ft x 21 ft) living area).
It is questionable how much the floor plan can be reduced without significantly restricting the sense of space. The living area and possibly the staircase area could be made slightly smaller. Traffic area (hallways, circulation) is relatively high. The upper floor layout could be optimized, e.g., the master bedroom could face more towards the north. It is also questionable whether a second bathroom on the upper floor is necessary.
Placement of the building on the plot still needs to be discussed. (The garage is currently planned at the boundary with the neighbor.)
Price estimate according to the architect/planner: starting at approximately €2,700/m² (about $280/sq ft) (without interior finishes).
Personal price limit for house including landscaping, architect, additional costs, interior finishes is about €700,000 (about $730,000), with a buffer of about €100,000 (about $105,000) remaining. (Land already paid.)
Construction type planned was timber frame, but due to material cost and delivery time developments for wood, solid construction is also being reconsidered.
Preferred heating system: heat pump, with additional photovoltaic system for electricity (without storage).
If you had to give up anything, what details or features?
The living area and terrace could be smaller. The garage could be smaller. An L-shaped floor plan is not essential. The photovoltaic system could be installed later. Partial basement would be sufficient (due to the slope this makes less sense and probably would not lead to financial savings). The open space (atrium) is not absolutely necessary.
What you cannot give up: separation of kitchen/dining from living area, double garage, separate dressing room.
Why is the design like this now?
We gave the architect a broadly defined requirements profile. No specifications regarding floor plan or room sizes were given.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
Is the price limit and rough cost estimate from the architect realistic? How can the living area be reduced? How will acoustics distribute via the open space to the upper floor? Is the planned terrace problematic? (Basement ceiling as terrace floor a good idea?)
We are open to general criticism and suggestions for improvement 🙂 We will gladly report on further progress in the coming weeks.
Plot size: approximately 2,700 sqm (29,000 sq ft), of which about 1,200 sqm (13,000 sq ft) is forested area (marked in green). Demolition of the current building: house number 33.
The plot is located at the end of a cul-de-sac (NRW). There is no zoning plan. The planned building area has about a 2 m (6.5 ft) height difference. The slope declines towards the east/south.
Maximum height/limits: Ridge height of neighboring property approx. 9 m (30 ft).
We have largely given the architect free rein (exclusions: flat roof, hip/pyramid roof, or city villa/Bauhaus style).
Two adults (31 + 27), no children yet. Planned maximum living area is 160-170 sqm (1,720–1,830 sq ft).
Ground floor: spacious living and dining area. Large kitchen. Small shower/WC on ground floor, small storage/utility room with mudroom function.
Upper floor: master bedroom, two children’s rooms, separate dressing room, one bathroom. Guest room either in basement or upper floor.
Basement: utility/technical room, fitness room, office/guest room, small WC (due to direct garden access).
Only a small office is needed, as no home office work is planned.
Balcony, roof terrace: unnecessary due to the garden.
Garage, carport: double garage plus 2 parking spaces.
Small outdoor sauna planned for the future.
House design (In the 3D plan, I removed two walls on the south side of the ground floor so you can see inside the house. Window planning is not yet included in the design.)
Ground floor: We personally like the layout 100%.
Upper floor: We find it almost perfect. The small open space is nice. The children’s rooms are next to each other. The parents’ room is somewhat separated. The upper floor also provides shading for the ground floor terrace area. (Balcony is unnecessary and will be removed.)
What do we not like? Why?
The floor plan is currently a bit too large. The plan was for 160-170 sqm (1,720–1,830 sq ft) of living space (we actually find this size almost too big, especially if we do not have children). The current floor plan shows about 190 sqm (2,045 sq ft) living space plus basement (approx. 6 m x 13 m (20 ft x 43 ft) + 6.5 m x 6.5 m (21 ft x 21 ft) living area).
It is questionable how much the floor plan can be reduced without significantly restricting the sense of space. The living area and possibly the staircase area could be made slightly smaller. Traffic area (hallways, circulation) is relatively high. The upper floor layout could be optimized, e.g., the master bedroom could face more towards the north. It is also questionable whether a second bathroom on the upper floor is necessary.
Placement of the building on the plot still needs to be discussed. (The garage is currently planned at the boundary with the neighbor.)
Price estimate according to the architect/planner: starting at approximately €2,700/m² (about $280/sq ft) (without interior finishes).
Personal price limit for house including landscaping, architect, additional costs, interior finishes is about €700,000 (about $730,000), with a buffer of about €100,000 (about $105,000) remaining. (Land already paid.)
Construction type planned was timber frame, but due to material cost and delivery time developments for wood, solid construction is also being reconsidered.
Preferred heating system: heat pump, with additional photovoltaic system for electricity (without storage).
If you had to give up anything, what details or features?
The living area and terrace could be smaller. The garage could be smaller. An L-shaped floor plan is not essential. The photovoltaic system could be installed later. Partial basement would be sufficient (due to the slope this makes less sense and probably would not lead to financial savings). The open space (atrium) is not absolutely necessary.
What you cannot give up: separation of kitchen/dining from living area, double garage, separate dressing room.
Why is the design like this now?
We gave the architect a broadly defined requirements profile. No specifications regarding floor plan or room sizes were given.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
Is the price limit and rough cost estimate from the architect realistic? How can the living area be reduced? How will acoustics distribute via the open space to the upper floor? Is the planned terrace problematic? (Basement ceiling as terrace floor a good idea?)
We are open to general criticism and suggestions for improvement 🙂 We will gladly report on further progress in the coming weeks.
Bamboochaa schrieb:
Personal budget limit for the house, including outdoor areas, architect, additional costs, and interior furnishings
about €700,000 (approximately $770,000), with an additional buffer of around €100,000 (approximately $110,000) available. Great design! I would build it exactly like that right away. The only suggestion: consider taking some space from the large bathroom on the upper floor to create a small utility room for the washer and dryer.
How many square meters is it? It looks like over 200 square meters (about 2,150 square feet) of living space, plus a basement. You will probably need that buffer if the budget includes the items mentioned above.
B
Bamboochaa3 Jun 2021 11:26Having a utility room would be a good idea 🙂
We currently have around 190m² (2,045 sq ft). But as I mentioned before, we want to reduce to 170 to 180m² (1,830 to 1,940 sq ft). I agree that with 190m² (2,045 sq ft) the budget might become tight. Also, 170m² (1,830 sq ft) would be more than enough space for us.
We currently have around 190m² (2,045 sq ft). But as I mentioned before, we want to reduce to 170 to 180m² (1,830 to 1,940 sq ft). I agree that with 190m² (2,045 sq ft) the budget might become tight. Also, 170m² (1,830 sq ft) would be more than enough space for us.
It becomes clear after just a few posts how things are going to proceed here...
Regarding the project: the planned coal supply is never going to be feasible.
If a living area of 160-170 sqm (1700-1830 sq ft) is required, this should also be targeted and implemented. Did the architect not listen or have issues with numbers? 😀 If necessary, reduce the size accordingly or redesign/plan differently. Are there any dimensions? Upper floor wing 6 x 15 m (20 x 50 ft)?
What is shown leans more towards the seven-figure range.
Regarding the project: the planned coal supply is never going to be feasible.
If a living area of 160-170 sqm (1700-1830 sq ft) is required, this should also be targeted and implemented. Did the architect not listen or have issues with numbers? 😀 If necessary, reduce the size accordingly or redesign/plan differently. Are there any dimensions? Upper floor wing 6 x 15 m (20 x 50 ft)?
What is shown leans more towards the seven-figure range.
askforafriend3 Jun 2021 13:29driver55 schrieb:
It becomes clear after just a few posts how this will proceed...
Regarding the project: The planned budget will never be feasible.
If a living area of 160–170 sqm (1700–1830 sq ft) is required, then that should be the target and implemented accordingly. Did the architect not listen, or do they have issues with numbers? 😀 If necessary, shrink the plan or redesign it. Are there any dimensions? Upper floor wing 6 x 15 m (20 x 49 ft)?
What has been shown points more toward a seven-figure sum. I agree – if you’re not 100% sure whether you will have children, the current size is already way too big. Tell the architect you want to reduce to 160 sqm (1700 sq ft). Size is the biggest factor you can control in your project. We also initially planned about 200 sqm (2150 sq ft) of living area but reduced it to 170 sqm (1830 sq ft). A few small adjustments to the floor plan, and everything falls into place – at our cost of 3000 euros per sqm, that saved us 90,000...
B
Bamboochaa3 Jun 2021 13:34Thank you for your comments. We had the same thoughts. It is clear to us that 190-200sqm (2,045-2,153 sq ft) is definitely too much. (The architect also presented other designs with 170sqm (1,829 sq ft), but the layout did not convince us as much as this one.) We have the next appointment soon and will continue from there. I see 170sqm (1,829 sq ft) as a realistic goal.
Elokine schrieb:
The only consideration: in the upper floor, allocate some space from the large bathroom to create a small utility room for the washing machine and dryer. This is where the challenge with room layout between floors begins again: the laundry room is often placed in the basement, but it is more practical to have it where the laundry is generated.
Therefore, it’s worth moving away from conventional layouts and thinking about where things make the most sense. The design is undoubtedly stylish and I would choose it as well, but you would probably often be frustrated while living there.
That’s why you should consider whether a parents’ floor or children’s floor would make more sense. Simply zone the rooms based on their function rather than sticking to outdated conventions (parents’ and children’s bedrooms together, sauna and utility room in the basement). The open living area should definitely be on the ground floor at the entrance level, but it creates a big barrier to the garden.
Maybe parents’ rooms with sauna and utility room on the ground floor with a nice sunny terrace? Just run through it mentally. That way, you can make do with around 210 m² (2,260 sq ft) including the basement 🙂
Similar topics