ᐅ Floor Plan Options for a Single-Family Home, 130–150 sqm, 1.5 Stories, Hillside Location

Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size – 680 sqm (7319 sq ft)
Slope – hillside location, approximately 1.5-2 m (5-6.5 ft) incline within the building envelope
Site coverage ratio – 0.3
Floor area ratio – 0.6
Building envelope, building line and boundary – see image
Adjacent buildings – none planned, neighboring lots undeveloped
Number of parking spaces – 2
Number of floors – 1.5 above basement
Roof type – gable roof with 33-43º pitch
Architectural style – traditional single-family house
Orientation – as per plan, facing south
Maximum heights/limits: ridge height 8.60 m (28.2 ft) measured from ground floor level
Additional requirements: fixed ridge orientation, ground floor height fixed with a 60 cm (24 inch) window

Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: gable roof, classic style, if possible untreated, weathering wood façade on ground and upper floors
Basement, floors: due to hillside location a basement with open southern side is suitable; other sensible options (stilts?) have not been suggested so far
Number of occupants, ages: 2 adults, planning for 3 children
Room requirements on ground and upper floors:
- Ground floor: open kitchen-dining-living area, guest WC with shower, office (can be moved upstairs if necessary), balcony/terrace on west side (mixed orientation due to slope)
- Upper floor: 3 or 4 bedrooms, family bathroom (shower + bathtub)
- Basement: open to south, main entrance on south (front of house) with hallway, utility room, storage room, 2 rooms for expansion (hobby and/or youth room; if used as youth room, one fewer children’s bedroom upstairs could be planned)
Office use – home office
Guest accommodation per year – visitors expected occasionally, accommodated as needed
Open or closed architecture – open plan, no fully separated staircase
Conservative or modern style – not clear what that means; lots of wood (wooden beams) would be nice but usually too costly
Open kitchen, kitchen island – yes to both
Number of dining seats – 5+ (with temporary solutions acceptable for guests)
Fireplace – yes, on ground floor; aware it may be impractical
Music/home theater wall – TV wall starting from 2.6 m (8.5 ft) width
Balcony, roof terrace – balcony with terrace extension on west side planned
Garage, carport – double carport if visually suitable; garage probably better due to slope
Vegetable garden, greenhouse – basically, planned for the future
Additional wishes/special features/daily routine, reasons for choices or exclusions:

Since at least one person spends a lot of time in the office in the afternoon/evening, we envision it on the ground floor – currently this is the case, with open doors; kitchen noise and smells do not disturb but rather enhance the feeling of togetherness in the house. This also explains the wish for an open living-dining-kitchen area. One question is how much this area can or should be separated from the open staircase with walls and doors: marketing materials show it nicely, keeping children in "acoustic" proximity, but the practical benefit of at least one, instead of two doors between children’s rooms and living room is undeniable.

House Design
Planning by:
– planner from a construction company
– architect
– Do-it-Yourself
A mix of all three, with no finalized designs yet

What do you like most? Why?
Open living-dining-kitchen area, open staircase, entrance via basement – the living room is intended as a family lounge with acoustical and olfactory contact acceptable; entrance in basement avoids the annoying "walking around the house" and provides space for coats and shoes.

What don’t you like? Why?
Price estimate by architect/planner:
Between €350k and €550k for the house without basement depending on provider
Personal price limit for house including equipment:
Considering €100k for basement, €100k additional construction-related costs, then maximum €400k + €50k for equipment and some landscaping
Preferred heating technology:
Most financially reasonable: underfloor heating with near-surface geothermal heat would be nice but difficult without electric offers; therefore likely mainstream air-to-water heat pump.

If you have to give up something, which details/additions
– can be given up:
Office on the ground floor if this allows a larger living-dining-kitchen area – before all three children arrive, another solution might be found (possibly in basement).
Ground floor exit to north garden including mudroom area – could be omitted to save floor space, but is usually included in standard series houses anyway.
Pantry also dispensable – often the small utility room serves the purpose, which in our case is in the basement.
Possibly basement dispensable if there are reasonable alternatives.
– cannot be given up:
Fireplace. 🙂

Why has the design evolved as it is now?
A mix of many examples from various magazines, scaling back special requests after first cost estimates, room requirements...

What makes it particularly good or bad in your view?
Good: orientation to south/west, no need to walk around the house, main rooms with nice south-west exposure.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
Opinions and arguments on ground floor variants: Where should the office be, kitchen-dining area angular or linear, wall/door to kitchen-dining area?

Thank you very much for your honest feedback. If I should clarify or specify anything better, please just ask!

jerimata schrieb:

If possible, untreated, weather-resistant wooden facade on the ground floor and attic

Better not to go with an *ahem* "economy" home builder 🙂

jerimata schrieb:

Due to the sloping site, a basement with an open south-facing side is an option; other reasonable options (stilts?) have not been suggested to us so far

Stilts also don’t sound like a reasonable option; I assume my basic rule for basements is known by now (if not, a search might help). Show us the plot!

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

I find the layout more than confusing.

I also don't understand how, in Ground Floor version 2, the kitchen is supposed to be closer to the terrace.

From what I can tell (unfortunately all plans lack measurements or elevation points, etc.), the plot slopes upward from south to north?

11ant schrieb:

Better not to go with an *ahem* "economy" house builder 🙂

We have also noticed that regional timber construction companies can offer this almost cost-neutral (it’s their specialty, saving on plastering, relatively low maintenance, etc.), while conventional providers a) don’t want to do it, b) ask for more information and say “we’ll sort that out later,” or c) charge exorbitant prices. But with total differences of 150,000 to 200,000 euros, option c) doesn’t really make much of a difference—and the pure craftsmanship itself isn’t exactly rocket science, at least that’s my take as a layperson (or how do you arrive at your statement?).

11ant schrieb:

Stilts don’t sound like a reasonable option either; I assume my standard basement rules are familiar by now (otherwise the search function might help). Show us the plot!

I haven’t found an original plan, but from the posts it’s pretty clear it’s a basement—which wouldn’t surprise me otherwise.

kbt09 schrieb:

I find the presentation more than confusing.

Text or floor plans? I can understand the text, but as a beginner I tried to follow the template exactly... sorry! Questions about the floor plans might be clearer by hand—once I have something, I’ll update them.

kbt09 schrieb:

I also don’t understand how in Ground Floor Var. 2 the kitchen can be closer to the terrace.

The terrace would be in the northwest (rear left), accessed via a balcony—the walking distances might be similar, but mentally in Var. 2 the kitchen is right next to the terrace (or overlooks it through a window), while in Var. 1 the kitchen is centrally located on the south side, and the terrace is directly next to the living room.

kbt09 schrieb:

If I’m looking correctly (unfortunately all plans lack dimensions or elevation points, etc.), then the plot slopes upward from south to north?

My mistake, I thought I did well with the contour lines, but forgot to indicate the direction: Each line represents 1 meter, higher in the north (top), lower in the south. A nice view looking down into the valley.

To put it another way: The exact details are not the point, but it’s clear that somewhere in the northwest (top left) the “less important” rooms like guest WC, potential pantry, and a possible exit to the north garden are to be placed. What’s interesting for us now is whether there are good reasons based on experience for a specific arrangement of the kitchen-dining-living area:

• Var 1: Living northwest, dining southwest, kitchen south-center.
• Var 2: Kitchen and living swapped.
• Var 3: All three along the entire south façade, which might give a more “corridor-like” impression?
• Var 4: As an example of a variant that is completely open to the staircase.
-

jerimata schrieb:

I haven’t found an original source, but the posts clearly suggest a basement – otherwise, I would have been surprised.

I can’t comment on this, as I’m not familiar with your property. For regulations, please see the recent discussion here: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grosses-Büro-oder-gleich-eine-einliegerwohnung.37736/#post-464293

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

jerimata schrieb:

We also noticed that regional timber construction companies can offer this "almost" cost-neutral (it’s their specialty, saving on plastering, relatively low maintenance, etc.), whereas conventional providers a) do not want to do it, b) ask and say "we’ll clarify later," or c) charge exorbitant prices. But with overall differences of 150,000–200,000 euros, option c) doesn’t weigh that heavily—and the pure craftsmanship isn’t exactly rocket science, at least that’s my view as a layperson (or how do you come to your statement?).

I assume it should be something similar to @Climbee—just basically in the "patina edition." From my point of view, there are only two construction methods for such an appearance if you want to avoid building defects: 1., a stone house where you can screw the battens of the substructure securely; or 2., a carpenter who takes the custom facade request into account right from the design phase.

The timber frame panel serial manufacturers "can’t do that," so the nominal extra cost (although already quite high) will still be minor compared to the price of potential building damage. Their wall construction usually assumes a plaster carrier as a provisional near-finished surface, on which the final finish is applied in the form of plaster. With battens and then on-site manufactured cladding, you will *ahem* overwhelm an "economy" manufacturer even on the logistics side of the construction. In the serial production sector, you might get this from Gussek Haus (their hybrid wall is essentially similar, just with facing brick), or from the "Swedish house" providers; normally, you would probably look better with premium brands like Baufritz, Platz, Regnauer, and the like. Or you go straight to the shrub carpenter / @haydee: or did you trust Wirlebenhaus for that as well?

Another alternative would be to put such a "Maybach from Dacia" on the chopping block ;-)

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/