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.
H
hanghaus20003 Jun 2021 15:23For the evaluation of a hillside house, the land elevations are missing. The architect should have those, as they are part of the site analysis. Please provide them. Genuine floor plans with furniture and windows are also helpful. From the SketchUp model, one can only guess how it is supposed to look.
B
Bamboochaa3 Jun 2021 15:36hanghaus2000 schrieb:
For evaluating a house on a slope, the elevations of the plot are missing. The architect should have these, as they are part of the basic site analysis. Please provide them. Actual floor plans showing furniture and windows would also be helpful. From the SketchUp model, you can only guess what it is supposed to look like. The surveyor has been there. We have the high points. They are also marked on the site plan.
H
hanghaus20003 Jun 2021 16:43Bamboochaa schrieb:
The surveyor was here. We have the high points. They are also marked on the site plan. Thank you. I must have missed that. Unfortunately, I can’t read it.
B
Bamboochaa3 Jun 2021 16:50hanghaus2000 schrieb:
Thanks. I must have overlooked that. Unfortunately, I can't read it.Yes, the quality isn’t the best. I can provide more if needed. There is roughly a 2m (6.5 ft) height difference around the house.Some furniture is already partially drawn in on the ground floor as well.
H
hanghaus20003 Jun 2021 17:05The ground floor is 142.20 m (467 feet), how high is the street?
The living room is 4 steps lower, the terrace 5 steps down.
This fits the slope quite well. I like it. Are there also plans with windows? The open space doesn’t make much sense without windows on the upper floor.
I think this works quite well without a basement.
The more I think about it, the more I like it.
The living room is 4 steps lower, the terrace 5 steps down.
This fits the slope quite well. I like it. Are there also plans with windows? The open space doesn’t make much sense without windows on the upper floor.
I think this works quite well without a basement.
The more I think about it, the more I like it.
B
Bamboochaa3 Jun 2021 17:21hanghaus2000 schrieb:
The ground floor is at 142.20 m (467 ft), how high is the street?
The living room is 4 steps lower, the terrace 5 steps lower.
This fits quite well with the slope. I like it. Are there also plans with windows? The open space doesn’t make much sense without windows on the upper floor.
I think it works quite well without a basement.
The longer I think about it, the more I like it.This would be the survey. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you exactly where the house would stand yet. We would discuss that in the next meeting. I assume the entrance would be roughly where the ridge of the old house currently runs.
There are no window plans yet.
Similar topics