ᐅ Evaluation of floor plan for approximately 145 sqm single-family house with basement, ground floor, and upper floor
Created on: 14 Oct 2021 12:44
A
Arango18
Hello everyone,
Zoning plan/restrictions: Zoning plan and restrictions considered by the architect
Plot size: 675m² (7260 sq ft)
Slope: yes, running diagonally across the plot (see elevation plan)
Building window, building line and boundary: 3 m (10 feet) on all sides
Edge development: yes, neighbor to the southeast
Number of parking spaces: 2 in garage and 2 in front of garage
Number of floors: 2.5
Roof type: gable roof, 36 degrees
Architectural style: simple
Orientation: southwest
Maximum heights/limits: same as neighboring buildings, sufficiently high
Other requirements: none
Street: cul-de-sac; our house is at the end, with neighbors on one side and open view of forest, meadow, and valley on the other
Owners’ requirements
Style, roof type, building type: interior as open and straightforward as possible, exterior simple
Basement, floors: basement, ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF)
Number and age of occupants: currently 2 (both 28 years old), planning 1-2 children
Space requirements for GF, UF: approx. 140 m² (1507 sq ft) of living space
Office: absolutely necessary due to 80% remote work
Guest bedrooms: very rare use
Open or closed layout: open
Conservative or modern construction: conservative (mostly because it’s usually more affordable)
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen with bar or island (due to space and layout, more likely a bar)
Dining seats: 4-6
Fireplace: planned but not mandatory
Music/stereo wall: standard TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace: small terrace on the slightly extended garage towards southwest, terrace towards southeast
Garage, carport: double garage with a single door
Utility garden, greenhouse: standard
Other wishes/notes/daily routine, including reasons why some things are wanted or not: a small shower in the guest WC is very important to us, as well as a small room for the home office. Since I work from home 80% of the time, this is essential. Also, a small storage room for vacuum cleaner etc.
House design
Who designed it: architect
What do you particularly like? The dining and living area looks bright and cozy in our opinion. Not too big and not too small with a great view.
What don’t you like? Why? Bathroom layout feels too tight and awkward, hallway in the upper floor too narrow?
Preferred heating system: air source heat pump
If you had to give up some features, which ones?
Fireplace
Why did the design end up like it is now?
The original design was larger and included more details such as corner and roof windows, but it was optimized for cost.
However, the room layout and overall room concept basically remained unchanged.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
I would appreciate further suggestions, especially regarding the aspects we don’t like. Overall, we are quite happy with it. Do you see any major “no-gos”?
If any information is incomplete or unclear, I’m happy to check it again.
Zoning plan/restrictions: Zoning plan and restrictions considered by the architect
Plot size: 675m² (7260 sq ft)
Slope: yes, running diagonally across the plot (see elevation plan)
Building window, building line and boundary: 3 m (10 feet) on all sides
Edge development: yes, neighbor to the southeast
Number of parking spaces: 2 in garage and 2 in front of garage
Number of floors: 2.5
Roof type: gable roof, 36 degrees
Architectural style: simple
Orientation: southwest
Maximum heights/limits: same as neighboring buildings, sufficiently high
Other requirements: none
Street: cul-de-sac; our house is at the end, with neighbors on one side and open view of forest, meadow, and valley on the other
Owners’ requirements
Style, roof type, building type: interior as open and straightforward as possible, exterior simple
Basement, floors: basement, ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF)
Number and age of occupants: currently 2 (both 28 years old), planning 1-2 children
Space requirements for GF, UF: approx. 140 m² (1507 sq ft) of living space
Office: absolutely necessary due to 80% remote work
Guest bedrooms: very rare use
Open or closed layout: open
Conservative or modern construction: conservative (mostly because it’s usually more affordable)
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen with bar or island (due to space and layout, more likely a bar)
Dining seats: 4-6
Fireplace: planned but not mandatory
Music/stereo wall: standard TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace: small terrace on the slightly extended garage towards southwest, terrace towards southeast
Garage, carport: double garage with a single door
Utility garden, greenhouse: standard
Other wishes/notes/daily routine, including reasons why some things are wanted or not: a small shower in the guest WC is very important to us, as well as a small room for the home office. Since I work from home 80% of the time, this is essential. Also, a small storage room for vacuum cleaner etc.
House design
Who designed it: architect
What do you particularly like? The dining and living area looks bright and cozy in our opinion. Not too big and not too small with a great view.
What don’t you like? Why? Bathroom layout feels too tight and awkward, hallway in the upper floor too narrow?
Preferred heating system: air source heat pump
If you had to give up some features, which ones?
Fireplace
Why did the design end up like it is now?
The original design was larger and included more details such as corner and roof windows, but it was optimized for cost.
However, the room layout and overall room concept basically remained unchanged.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
I would appreciate further suggestions, especially regarding the aspects we don’t like. Overall, we are quite happy with it. Do you see any major “no-gos”?
If any information is incomplete or unclear, I’m happy to check it again.
Arango18 schrieb:
Could you give me an assessment of our landscaping plans (based on the current orientation of the house)?
Here’s the situation: backfilling the excavation on the left side of the house (for the stairway and entrance area), partially terracing (as shown in the designs and behind the house).
However, we would also like to keep a part “natural,” meaning part of the garden would remain as shoreline – specifically towards the east/northeast, if I’m reading the elevation plans correctly and assessing the site properly.
Is this feasible, or have we missed something? These are just our rough ideas so far; we haven’t discussed them in detail with the architect yet. The assessment of the landscaping execution based on the current orientation is: a complete bad idea! In post #83, with some effort, you can make out the contour lines and clearly see that the proposed pathway makes no sense. The existing ground level at the front door is about 80cm (31.5 inches) higher than at the left corner of the house. So, you’d have to add approximately 2.2m (7 feet) of fill just to access the house at all. You presumably don’t want to fill in the office space, so this would create something like an access berm with a dark gap between the house and the walkway. I really don’t want to imagine the view from the office. The west side of the lot would also be ruined, and you'd spend $20,000–30,000 (not converted here per instructions) just on what is arguably the worst possible access route.
The “low-cost” terrace near the entrance that you mentioned in an earlier post also makes little sense because how would you access it? Through a hallway cluttered with shoes and coats?
If you want to position the house as far to the left (or bottom) as possible—which I understand—you won’t be able to raise the terrain there either, because you’ll need to maintain the original ground level at the western property boundary. The more and higher you fill, and the closer you are to the property line, the steeper the slope or retaining structure will have to be. At the garage entrance, you’ll have at least a 60cm (24 inches) cross slope, and the terrace on the east side will require significant retaining as well.
In summary, with the current plan, you will have to reshape EVERYTHING between the street and the house, as well as the west side of the house. It couldn’t be more complicated or expensive. This is far from a natural look.
Also, since you want (or need) to keep the building height low due to the garage floor, your attic space will be limited by roof slopes, which will ruin the nice view. If you really want to proceed this way, at least install a webcam on the west corner so you can watch the view, landscape, and sunsets on TV.
I really don’t like to be the bearer of bad news, but I had to say it. Please reconsider your plans. Cars don’t need access inside the house, and with a longer, narrow building that follows the slope, you could have two full floors much more easily and affordably. Taking this extra step would pay off financially, functionally, and emotionally.
By the way, I’m quite sure this forum will be a big help if you decide to revise your plans.
Hangman schrieb:
If you really want to do all that, at least set up a webcam on the corner of your house so you can watch your view, the landscape, and sunsets on your TV. Mr. Conductor, a drum roll please!
Hangman schrieb:
I really don’t like to play the trickster, But our new member from the Green side is already handling that absolutely reliably ;-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
H
hanghaus200019 Oct 2021 13:05@Hangman You couldn’t have said it better. Thanks for the clear words. Unfortunately, I can only give a like here.
I always appreciate when floor plans are shared, but the planning ignores the site. Somehow people think things through, even create a topographic survey, but then don’t take the terrain or the views into account. That leaves me speechless.
I always appreciate when floor plans are shared, but the planning ignores the site. Somehow people think things through, even create a topographic survey, but then don’t take the terrain or the views into account. That leaves me speechless.
hanghaus2000 schrieb:
@Hangman, that couldn’t have been said better. Thanks for the clear words. Unfortunately, only a like is possible here.You can also use the one with the heart eyes 😉H
hanghaus200019 Oct 2021 13:35ypg schrieb:
You can also use the puppy dog eyes 😉I would feel confident trying that with you. Better not with @Hangman.I’m feeling guilty again because these design discussions often come across as somewhat intrusive, and there is a risk that the person asking the question might feel attacked. However, I find this project very sympathetic, and filling out the questionnaire was like a balm for a soul tired of showiness. A simple, down-to-earth house with a nowadays almost modest space requirement on a top-class plot. Finally, something not meant to impress or boast, but simply a piece of home. So, @Arango18: this is really not a personal criticism!
To illustrate, I just searched the web for image examples and came across a charming Austrian brochure with fitting illustrations:
On the left is one possible direction this could go... and I had to copy the texts right away 🙂
To illustrate, I just searched the web for image examples and came across a charming Austrian brochure with fitting illustrations:
On the left is one possible direction this could go... and I had to copy the texts right away 🙂
Similar topics