ᐅ Single-family house floor plan on a sloped lot with terrace / roof terrace

Hello!

Thank you in advance for your support!

Development Plan / Restrictions
NRW, development plan from 1964, few specifications (e.g., no height limits, no description of attic), maximum roof pitch 10 degrees
Plot size: 509 m² (5479 ft²)
Slope: Yes, sloping down from the street to the rear, about 2.5 m (8 ft) height difference, mostly level at the front
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.7
Building envelope, building line and boundary: see site plan. Lower + upper rectangle with thick red frame: garden level including basement; upper rectangle only: full floor ground level (from street); garage to the right
Surrounding buildings: see site plan
Number of parking spaces: 1 garage (for bicycles), 1 parking space in front with charging station
Number of floors: 1 garden level + 1 full story (ground floor from street) + attic (according to 1962 building regulations – only 1/3 of the floor needs to have a clear height under 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in))
Roof type: gable roof with 10-degree pitch, photovoltaic panels
Architectural style: modern
Orientation: garden faces west
Maximum heights / limits: none
Additional requirements: none
The plot is completely on a slope, so there is also a view of the valley / trees / city from higher up

Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: simple, modern single-family house, but not looking like a “new build block”
Basement, floors: three (garden/basement, ground floor, upper floor)
Number of people, ages: 4: 41, 40, 6, 3
Space requirements on ground floor: open living / dining / kitchen, storage room, guest WC
Space requirements on upper floor: office/guest room, guest WC, bathroom (with sauna), walk-in closet, master bedroom
Space requirements in basement: 2 children’s rooms, one office/guest room, HVAC room, utility room, cellar, children’s bathroom
Office: family use or home office? Both – we regularly work from home and have frequent phone calls
Number of overnight guests per year: parents/in-laws approx. 10 times per year for 3-4 days, other guests (mostly with children) approx. 10 times per year for 2-3 days
Open or closed architecture: semi-open
Conservative or modern construction: modern but warm
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen, half island coming from the wall near the terrace
Number of dining seats: table 90 cm x 200 cm (35 in x 79 in), usually 6 chairs, but also fits 10-12
Fireplace: yes, centrally located in the living/dining area
Music / stereo wall: minimal space, just a record player somewhere, no TV but retractable screen
Balcony, roof terrace: balcony-like terrace on ground floor (due to approx. 2.5 m (8 ft) drop to garden), outdoor stairs to roof terrace
Garage, carport: one garage for bicycles, one parking space with first meter of garage roofed, including electric vehicle charging
Utility garden, greenhouse: no, at most vegetables / herbs
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions

House Design
Designer: architect, but drawing signed off by me because the last plan needs several changes that are not yet incorporated (I would appreciate feedback)
What do you like most? Why?
- Entrance: spacious, with a clear view through the house right away
- Living room: lots of outside brought inside, terrace allows for plenty of outdoor living
- Upper floor: wellness oasis with roof terrace (and the ability to access roof terrace comfortably outdoors on all sides)
What do you dislike? Why?
- Possibly a long corridor in the basement?
- Possibly room layout on upper floor, in particular the master bedroom
- Possibly space for furniture in living room
Cost estimate by architect/planner: not yet discussed
Personal price limit for house including fittings: 1–1.2 million EUR
Preferred heating technology: heat pump

If you had to give up certain details or extensions
- What could you do without? Outdoor stairs?
- What is indispensable?

Why is the design the way it is? Multiple rounds with architect – development plan restricts strongly. With a relatively small plot, we wanted to keep as much garden space as possible.
Which requests were implemented by the architect? One linden tree will be preserved, the area in front of the house and on the front left will be built up, followed by an earth ramp leading down into the garden from the left side.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad?

What is the main / fundamental question about the floor plan in 130 characters? Answer: Do you have improvement suggestions? What do you like, what should we reconsider? What costs a lot, what can be saved?

Thanks for honest feedback and apologies for the images – they come directly from my lightweight CAD tool...

Thank you for your help – I’m looking forward to your input!

Thanks and best regards,

Tobias

Site plan

Upper floor

Ground floor

Basement

I find the design completely unsuccessful. I spent at least 10 minutes scrolling through it, examining it, and comparing it against the checklist. But it’s pointless. In my opinion, this is the least successful design in this phase so far this year. Sorry!

A few points:
- Staircase too short
- Support column in the living area is disruptive and unnecessary in a new build
- The living floor between the parents’ and children’s rooms hinders supervision
- Long, dark corridors waste living space
- The small dimensions of the rooms on the left side of the plan won't work, even based on the structural shell measurements
- Unnecessarily convoluted layout

einbecker schrieb:

Several rounds with architect

I can’t believe it!
My advice: Change the architect! Start over!

I would summarize your talent for graphic representations as follows:
Site plan: you see a lot but understand little;
Floor plans: almost the complete opposite of "self-explanatory."
The result is that I understand very little from it, and despite four decades of reading plans, I can hardly imagine your house project.

einbecker schrieb:

Who is responsible for the design: Architect, but I revised it myself because the last plan is supposed to include some changes that haven’t been incorporated yet (but I would like feedback)

You should have at least shown the original plan as well; otherwise, it’s hardly possible to provide meaningful feedback. The "site plan," if I may say so, is "not consistent"; the specification of the roof shape and pitch is contradicted by the right-hand neighboring house. I don’t believe this is an architect’s design for a penny. It seems to me you have a mix-up in the dates and want to fool us on October 4th instead of April 1st as usual.

---

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

I fully agree with Yvonne on all points. And... why even have the concept of the children’s rooms in the basement?

Artificial plot divisions... and overall, how is the house supposed to be positioned on the site? Will there be further excavation?

From my perspective, there are two possibilities here: either you went to the architect with so many predefined requirements (and probably a self-drawn plan) that all he could do was sign off on it, or the colleague should give up his title.

Whichever of the two it is, the result belongs in the trash, see comments by @ypg.

Additional issues:
- Catastrophic use of space
- Rooms laid out impractically
- Extremely long walking distances
- Staircase planned completely poorly (and not functional)
- Dark hallway upstairs with no natural light
- Inspired by Abba: Corners, corners, corners

Forget about a quick start, throw the design away, and have the architect plan solely based on your needs.

Or just sink the 1.2 million into an impractical, annoying house...

ypg schrieb:

I find the design completely unsuccessful. I scrolled and examined the plans for at least 10 minutes while comparing them with the checklist. But it’s pointless. In my opinion, this is the most unsuccessful design in this phase this year. Sorry!

Thank you for the open and honest feedback—and yes, even if it’s not what you want to hear, better to know now than to regret it later!

ypg schrieb:

A few points:
- staircase too short
- support column in the living area is obstructive and unnecessary in a new build
- living floor between parents and child prevents proper supervision
- long, dark hallways waste living space
- the very small dimensions of the rooms on the left side of the plan will not even work as shell construction measurements
- unnecessarily complicated layout

I just can’t believe it! My advice: change architects! Start over!

The staircase issue is due to my limited CAD software (and my lack of skill) — it is actually longer in the original. Our architect is trying to remove the support column. The separation between child and parents will certainly take some getting used to at first, but later it will provide more freedom and so on (the children will be 8 and 5 years old when moving in, and the office upstairs can initially serve as an interim room for the kids).

The hallways are also one of our biggest concerns. This is of course partly due to the 8m (26 ft) building line requirement according to the local development plan, resulting in a “corridor” effect. Probably better with a differently placed staircase more centrally located? Do you have any tips or examples I could review? I have found very few examples combining a hillside location and wide setback requirements so far...

One question about “rooms on the left side of the plan will not work even in shell construction measurements”: Which rooms exactly are meant?

11ant schrieb:

I’d sum up your drawing skills as follows:
Site plan: you see a lot but understand very little;
Floor plans: almost the exact opposite of “self-explanatory.”
The effect is that I learn remarkably little from them and, despite four decades of plan reading, can hardly imagine your house project.

You should have shown the original plan at least (or in addition), as it’s hard to give proper feedback otherwise. The “site plan” is, how should I say it, inconsistent; the roof shape and pitch requirement are contradicted by the neighboring house on the right. I don’t believe this is architect-designed for a penny. I think you made a transposition error and want to fool us on April 10 instead of the usual April 1.

No intention to fool anyone here. Original plans are shown below. Regarding the roof shape requirement: only a maximum 10° (18°) pitch is specified; we chose the gable roof ourselves.

kbt09 schrieb:

I can only agree with Yvonne on all points. And... why the concept with children in the basement at all?

Artificially cut-up spaces... and how will the house be positioned on the site? Will there be further excavation?

The concept with children’s bedrooms in the basement is because there isn’t enough space upstairs and because the basement later offers more privacy for everyone involved (separate entrance, more distance, etc.). The children also have direct ground-level access to the garden... Regarding excavation—yes. The ground floor will be at 112.50m (369 ft) elevation, the basement at 109.70m (360 ft).

SoL schrieb:

From my perspective there are two possibilities here:
Either you came to the architect with so many fixed requirements (and probably a self-drawn plan) that he could only stamp approval, or the colleague should return his professional title.

Regardless of which: the result belongs in the trash bin, see the comments from @ypg.

Additional points:
Terrible space utilization
Impractical room layouts
Extremely long walking distances
Staircase completely poorly planned (and non-functional)
Dark hallway upstairs with no daylight
To quote Abba: Corners, corners, corners

Forget about a quick start, throw out the design, and let the architect plan based solely on your needs.

Or just waste the $1.2 million on an impractical, annoying house...

We have already brought up some of these issues, but we did not come to the architect with a finished plan. Perhaps much is due to my skills (I know why I didn’t become an architect) and the software I used...

Attached are the latest architect designs we discussed but then modified:
- Terrace narrowed (to enlarge the living room)
- Exterior staircase moved to the front (to create a nice seating area)
- Storage room moved next to the toilet (to bring the kitchen closer to the terrace)
- Upper floor completely changed (walk-in closet on the balcony makes little sense for us; the bathroom should go there... sauna not in the bedroom but in the bathroom)
- Basement altered only because of the narrower terrace
- Landscaping in front and to the left changed: the house will be dug deeper so that there is level garden access to the left front and a soil ramp down into the garden.

I hope some concepts become clearer with the “proper” plans. But this probably won’t change the key critical points you mentioned. We will have to revise again... If you have ideas regarding staircase placement (I think it has the biggest impact on what doesn’t work so well on the upper and lower floors... but we actually like the ground floor as it is) — please share!

Thanks again for the constructive criticism!

Ground floor

Upper floor

Basement