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.
B
Bamboochaa4 Jun 2021 11:31RomeoZwo schrieb:
I would try with your architect to design a floor plan that allows for flexible use of the basement/upper floor. If the children are young (<7 years), I would prefer them to be on my sleeping level, but at that age, two children can also share a room (and the basement would then be a playroom). Later, the teens have their own space in the basement, while you have peace and a nice additional room on the upper floor.
If the terrace is also built over the basement, your cellar will become huge! That means there will be much more space than just for fitness, office, or a small bathroom. (Oh yes, the cellar will also be expensive.) We will try to take that into account. It definitely makes sense.
As I understand it, the basement would only start from the stairs and continue eastward. So it would be a kind of partial basement. But that would probably depend on the building’s position on the slope. Ideally, the basement would then be “only” about 60 square meters (645 square feet) in size.
H
hanghaus20004 Jun 2021 14:20I was thinking more along the lines of a residential basement and ground floor, without a cellar.
B
Bamboochaa4 Jun 2021 23:58hanghaus2000 schrieb:
I was rather thinking of a living space in the basement level and the ground floor, no cellar.
I’m getting a bit confused with the terminology now. What exactly is the difference for you between a basement level and a cellar? Is a basement level a cellar with living space quality?We like the idea of an upper floor with great sightlines, including views into the tree canopies. Of course, not at any cost. We can’t really imagine how living areas and the kitchen-dining space would work on this lot if they were located in the basement level. For example, how is the natural light there? How does the western part, which is more embedded in the slope, come across?
We will go through all these points with the architect. The current design is not set in stone, and we are open to other solutions.
H
hanghaus20005 Jun 2021 08:06Ground floor slab at 143.20 meters (471 feet)
Basement floor slab at 140.20 meters (460 feet)
Attic only partially finished, rest with exposed roof structure
Open-plan space on the ground floor with desired views through to the trees.
I really like your design. However, the eastern area needs to be toned down. I'm not sure if the height will work with the residential basement section. We'll see what the architect says. I’m also starting to have doubts about the budget.
Basement floor slab at 140.20 meters (460 feet)
Attic only partially finished, rest with exposed roof structure
Open-plan space on the ground floor with desired views through to the trees.
I really like your design. However, the eastern area needs to be toned down. I'm not sure if the height will work with the residential basement section. We'll see what the architect says. I’m also starting to have doubts about the budget.
B
Bamboochaa5 Jun 2021 08:30hanghaus2000 schrieb:
Ground floor level at 143.20
Basement floor level at 140.20
Attic only partially finished, rest is exposed roof structure
Open space on the ground floor with desired sightlines towards the trees.
I really like your design. But the eastern part needs to be softened. I’m not sure if the residential partial basement will work height-wise. Let’s see what the architect says. I’m also starting to have doubts about the budget. Thank you for your thoughts. I’m also unsure if everything will work without exceeding the budget.
We will discuss this on-site and at least have a design prepared with two levels based on the current plan. Perhaps a simplified three-level design can also be developed, largely keeping the existing layout. For now, I’m counting on the architect’s creativity 🙂
H
hanghaus20005 Jun 2021 09:52Here is a slightly improved version.
Level the ground floor to approximately 143 meters (470 feet) on the west side.
Attic with no or only a small knee wall. Roof pitch 45 degrees?
Level the basement to approximately 140 meters (459 feet) on the east side.
This way, the building fits the slope better.
No retaining walls are needed, and earthworks are minimal.
Level the ground floor to approximately 143 meters (470 feet) on the west side.
Attic with no or only a small knee wall. Roof pitch 45 degrees?
Level the basement to approximately 140 meters (459 feet) on the east side.
This way, the building fits the slope better.
No retaining walls are needed, and earthworks are minimal.
Similar topics