ᐅ Floor plan of a single-family house for 4 people with issues on the ground floor
Created on: 30 Nov 2022 16:15
M
metin88
Hello,
we recently submitted a preliminary building inquiry with this floor plan. However, we are still not satisfied with the layout of the ground floor. Is the design still salvageable, or have we gone down the wrong path?
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 2000 m² (0.5 acres)
Slope: none
No development plan; all roof types are present in the neighborhood
Owners' Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: country house style (mullioned windows), hipped roof, town villa
Basement, floors: no basement (due to cost), 2 full floors
Number of people, age: 2 people (25 and 33 years), 2 children planned
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor: approx. 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) each
Office: home office
Overnight guests per year: very few
Open or closed architecture: open on the ground floor
Traditional or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo setup: 2 floor-standing speakers at the TV
Balcony, roof terrace: 1 balcony in the parents’ area
Garage, carport: double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes: laundry room on the upper floor
House Design
Designer: architect
What do you like most? Why?: We really like the upper floor due to its layout
What do you dislike? Why?: The living and dining areas cause problems. Although there is plenty of space, both the architect and we fear that the many corners prevent efficient use of the space. We would prefer the dining area to be smaller and the living area larger. The staircase also worries me. According to the architect, the ceiling height on the ground floor cannot exceed 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) because otherwise the staircase would be too long. Since it is a large house, he recommends keeping a rise-to-run ratio of 18/27 cm (7/10.5 inches). A steeper staircase should only be used if there is no other option. The architect also pointed out that the staircase leads to a wall on the upper floor, where there should ideally be more space.
Estimated cost according to architect/designer: over 750,000 €
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 1,000,000 €
Preferred heating system: heat pump with photovoltaic system
If you have to give up something, which details/extensions?
- Can give up: replace garage with carport, omit bay window at rear, terrace does not have to extend into the building volume, different staircase design
- Cannot give up: bay window at the front, home office
Why did the design end up like this?: I created a floor plan myself based on others from the internet. The architect then tried to create a feasible floor plan while staying as close as possible to my design.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?: We like the relatively efficient corridors on the ground and upper floors to give the other rooms more space. The exterior shape appeals to us a lot. The orientation of the rooms is also good, especially the kitchen and home office facing the street side. We have no complaints about the upper floor except for the narrow area in front of the stairs. We like the 45° wall in the dining area because it makes the space feel more open. What we like less is the division between the living and dining areas, the “too long” staircase, and the ground floor ceiling height of “only” 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in).
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Can the ground floor layout be improved so the living area is bigger, the dining area smaller, and ceiling height 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in) achieved?
Thanks a lot!
metin88
we recently submitted a preliminary building inquiry with this floor plan. However, we are still not satisfied with the layout of the ground floor. Is the design still salvageable, or have we gone down the wrong path?
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 2000 m² (0.5 acres)
Slope: none
No development plan; all roof types are present in the neighborhood
Owners' Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: country house style (mullioned windows), hipped roof, town villa
Basement, floors: no basement (due to cost), 2 full floors
Number of people, age: 2 people (25 and 33 years), 2 children planned
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor: approx. 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) each
Office: home office
Overnight guests per year: very few
Open or closed architecture: open on the ground floor
Traditional or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo setup: 2 floor-standing speakers at the TV
Balcony, roof terrace: 1 balcony in the parents’ area
Garage, carport: double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes: laundry room on the upper floor
House Design
Designer: architect
What do you like most? Why?: We really like the upper floor due to its layout
What do you dislike? Why?: The living and dining areas cause problems. Although there is plenty of space, both the architect and we fear that the many corners prevent efficient use of the space. We would prefer the dining area to be smaller and the living area larger. The staircase also worries me. According to the architect, the ceiling height on the ground floor cannot exceed 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) because otherwise the staircase would be too long. Since it is a large house, he recommends keeping a rise-to-run ratio of 18/27 cm (7/10.5 inches). A steeper staircase should only be used if there is no other option. The architect also pointed out that the staircase leads to a wall on the upper floor, where there should ideally be more space.
Estimated cost according to architect/designer: over 750,000 €
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 1,000,000 €
Preferred heating system: heat pump with photovoltaic system
If you have to give up something, which details/extensions?
- Can give up: replace garage with carport, omit bay window at rear, terrace does not have to extend into the building volume, different staircase design
- Cannot give up: bay window at the front, home office
Why did the design end up like this?: I created a floor plan myself based on others from the internet. The architect then tried to create a feasible floor plan while staying as close as possible to my design.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?: We like the relatively efficient corridors on the ground and upper floors to give the other rooms more space. The exterior shape appeals to us a lot. The orientation of the rooms is also good, especially the kitchen and home office facing the street side. We have no complaints about the upper floor except for the narrow area in front of the stairs. We like the 45° wall in the dining area because it makes the space feel more open. What we like less is the division between the living and dining areas, the “too long” staircase, and the ground floor ceiling height of “only” 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in).
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Can the ground floor layout be improved so the living area is bigger, the dining area smaller, and ceiling height 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in) achieved?
Thanks a lot!
metin88
B
Bertram10012 May 2023 19:40I would also rotate the guest toilet and the cloakroom somehow. The cloakroom is especially most practical when it can be accessed parallel to the hallway. This way, although there is plenty of hanging space, there is very little circulation space in front of the actual cloakroom, and despite the impressive hallway, people still end up stepping on each other’s feet right at the front door.
I don’t have any quick ideas on how to make this work because of the passage to the garage.
I don’t have any quick ideas on how to make this work because of the passage to the garage.
ypg schrieb:
hm… ok… how old is the architect?Close to retirement.ypg schrieb:
The master suite on the upper floor is completely poorly planned.So far, I actually liked the design. But we'll reconsider it.We would rather not rotate the rooms in the northeast because of the windows. I think the wardrobe offers enough space. The architect only drew in this huge closet there, but it can be designed better.
I would like the outdoor kitchen just for grilling (with gas)/pizza baking/bread baking. So only a counter with a sink and a gas grill. I thought the covered area would be suitable for that. Of course, having to carry ingredients over is a downside. We'll see — maybe just a gas grill near the kitchen will be enough.
Great feedback, thank you all.
metin88 schrieb:
Just before retirement.Just before how long postponed?https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I see a changed exterior wall thickness, now actually a classic 36.5 cm (14.4 inches) – but (how?) double-layered; and in the attic, I see both 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) and 12 cm (4.7 inches) (made of what, and why?). The hallway on the ground floor looks visually quite skewed in the overall spatial impression. I would be willing to “sacrifice” the garage passage for a clean break, and the statement about the technical room being outside the thermal envelope deserves a special satire award in the category of nonsense. To me, the design as a whole appears to be the inevitably failed attempt to “rebuild” some magazine dream house model by integrating poorly compatible modifications. Throw out such templates, or this will turn into a McMansion nightmare that would make Frankenstein proud. Go back to a list of requirements, create a concept from it. Based only on this concept, then develop a design. Into that design, only the most defining elements from the dream house template should be incorporated (please don’t confuse THREE wishes and SEVEN dwarfs!), and everything else should be left out for the good of the overall result.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I have reviewed the thread again from the beginning and have come to the conclusion that we have completely misjudged the self-diagnosis
and accepted it with full confidence.
The comparison between the designs in posts #1 and #17 shows no advancement to architectural quality, but rather a drafting assistant level of work, demonstrated by the near wholesale adoption of the upper floor from Yvonne’s design in post #9. It seems to have been overlooked that this was not an alternative compensation example, but merely a rescue attempt (with a new layout within the existing shell). The ground floor was adjusted accordingly, and nothing more. The front projecting bay was retained, and since it serves no real purpose, it was given a pointless and unused counterpart at the back. And this at a time when even @schmeissrein was ready to break away from the backward-driving captain. Also kept was the generous smoker’s balcony for that cigarette after marital duties, which now casts its shadow over the terrace during the already cooler evening sun. The children have casually moved from Siberia to the Adriatic, and the poor staircase was replaced by an even worse one: the exit is now not only globally more inconvenient but also, in detail, a textbook example of poor quality. This could easily serve as a bug-hunting discussion topic for architecture students to prepare for their second semester – chapeau!
The dressing room swapped its master-slave size relationship with the bedroom and now at least gained closet space as well as a dance floor. But you still have to pass by the sleeping partner to get from there to the bathroom, even though (still) there is space for a bathroom entrance from the hallway. Not to mention the disgrace of the technical room (HAR) outsourced in such a flashy house. Even the double garage can only accommodate one second car OR bicycles. If I tell that in my club, no one would believe me. This really shows more signs of amateurism than an architectural education; seriously: what does this architect actually do professionally?
(Forensic work and pet retail definitely not, since you apparently learn more there)
I truly see no even slightest suspicion of completing a phase 2 design development here; instead, my assumption is confirmed: the original poster seriously gave a tired drafting assistant the famous “mix of different magazines” from the questionnaire as a coloring template to approve and plot for the building permit / planning permission. That’s not how you create heroes, but McMansion nightmares :-(
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
metin88 schrieb:
have we gotten lost?
and accepted it with full confidence.
The comparison between the designs in posts #1 and #17 shows no advancement to architectural quality, but rather a drafting assistant level of work, demonstrated by the near wholesale adoption of the upper floor from Yvonne’s design in post #9. It seems to have been overlooked that this was not an alternative compensation example, but merely a rescue attempt (with a new layout within the existing shell). The ground floor was adjusted accordingly, and nothing more. The front projecting bay was retained, and since it serves no real purpose, it was given a pointless and unused counterpart at the back. And this at a time when even @schmeissrein was ready to break away from the backward-driving captain. Also kept was the generous smoker’s balcony for that cigarette after marital duties, which now casts its shadow over the terrace during the already cooler evening sun. The children have casually moved from Siberia to the Adriatic, and the poor staircase was replaced by an even worse one: the exit is now not only globally more inconvenient but also, in detail, a textbook example of poor quality. This could easily serve as a bug-hunting discussion topic for architecture students to prepare for their second semester – chapeau!
The dressing room swapped its master-slave size relationship with the bedroom and now at least gained closet space as well as a dance floor. But you still have to pass by the sleeping partner to get from there to the bathroom, even though (still) there is space for a bathroom entrance from the hallway. Not to mention the disgrace of the technical room (HAR) outsourced in such a flashy house. Even the double garage can only accommodate one second car OR bicycles. If I tell that in my club, no one would believe me. This really shows more signs of amateurism than an architectural education; seriously: what does this architect actually do professionally?
(Forensic work and pet retail definitely not, since you apparently learn more there)
I truly see no even slightest suspicion of completing a phase 2 design development here; instead, my assumption is confirmed: the original poster seriously gave a tired drafting assistant the famous “mix of different magazines” from the questionnaire as a coloring template to approve and plot for the building permit / planning permission. That’s not how you create heroes, but McMansion nightmares :-(
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Forensics and pet supply stores definitely not, you apparently learn more from those) Please refrain from discrediting professions by mentioning them in this forum. They are personalized for insiders here.
Similar topics