ᐅ Preliminary Floor Plan Discussion Single-Family House with Gable Roof, 170 sqm

Hello everyone,

we are planning to build and before consulting an architect, we would like to get your objective opinions on the floor plans we have posted. We really like this layout for the ground floor and upper floor and would like the architect to design something similar.

Please excuse the very simplified sketches; I’m not comfortable using these floor plan software programs, but I hope it’s understandable enough.

Notes on ground floor: Please disregard the pantry; the staircase should start straight and turn left at the top or simply be completely straight.
Notes on upper floor: We would like a walk-in closet attached to the bedroom with a connection to the bathroom. I have roughly marked this as we would like it, with the furniture in green. The T-shaped fixture in the bathroom should be rotated.

The main focus is on the room layout itself and whether there is enough storage space. Of course, the architect will need to adjust things, for example to align the stairs between ground and upper floor. The house should be about 170 square meters (1,830 square feet) and have a gable roof with a dormer. I have roughly indicated the approximate 2-meter (6.5 feet) height line in purple in a very basic way.

Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards,
Builder from the North

Development plan/restrictions
Plot size: 550 square meters (5,920 square feet)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio
Floor area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces
Number of floors
Roof type
Architectural style
Orientation: south/west
Maximum height/limitations
Other specifications: NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Builders’ requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type: gable roof, modern single-family house
Basement, floors: no basement, 1.5 floors with 140 cm (55 inches) knee wall from top of finished floor level
Number of people, ages: 2 adults, 2 children (third planned), 2 dogs
Space needs ground floor, upper floor:
Ground floor: office, utility room, guest toilet, kitchen/dining/living room
Upper floor: 3 children’s rooms, bedroom, walk-in closet, large bathroom
Office use: family use or home office? Home office
Guests per year: none
Open or closed layout: open
Conservative or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes and yes
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: initially included in the plan but discarded
Music/sound wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: 1 garage space, possibly carport later
Kitchen garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes/features/daily routine, including reasons why certain things should or shouldn’t be included

House design
Who created the design:
– Planner from a construction company
– Architect
– Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
What don’t you like? Why?
Cost estimate by architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: 500,000
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump

If you had to give up on any details or extensions:
– Could give up on:
– Cannot give up on: there must be 3 children’s rooms on the upper floor

Why does the current design look like it does?
Standard design from the planner?
Which wishes were implemented by the architect?
A mix from many examples from various magazines...
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion?

What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?

Why don’t you simply use the entire floor plan as a base?
The ground floor from the Fischer house and the Econ house are almost identical, except for the pantry. And the upper floor of the Econ house basically matches your requirements, right? Three children’s bedrooms plus a master bedroom with a walk-in closet. At least that way the floors would be coordinated.

The upper floor is based on Fischer Bau Haus Hannover and the ground floor on Econhaus Niederbieber 90-68.

Are you planning to build with an architect or with one of the general contractors who provided your floor plans?

Herr_Nord-DE_ schrieb:

Of course, the architect still needs to adjust the entire plan slightly, so that, for example, the stairs between the ground floor and first floor align properly.

You should remove the word "slightly," because a staircase can completely ruin entire floor plans.
So, how is the staircase supposed to be? Like the ground floor or the first floor?
Otherwise, the stairs won’t line up vertically, and also the straight staircase seems a bit too short to me.

hanse987 schrieb:

You should remove the word "somewhat," because a staircase can completely disrupt floor plans.
How is the staircase supposed to be designed? Like the ground floor or the upper floor?
That way the stairs wouldn’t be aligned on top of each other, and also the straight staircase seems a bit short to me.

The staircase from the upper floor is also somewhat longer... Here are the complete floor plans for both levels:

Herr_Nord-DE_ schrieb:

Please forgive me for the very simplified sketch, but I really can’t get along with these floor plan software programs, and I hope it’s at least somewhat understandable. [...] I roughly indicated the approximate 2m (6.5 feet) line in purple in a non-professional way.

From me, you’ll get not only an apology but also the warmest applause for sparing us the “architect apprentice sorcerer’s” treatises. Unfortunately, you only partially understood one essential point of “your” upper floor donor design yourself, shown in a rough purple mark, namely that you want to rebuild a substitution villa upper floor as a gable roof attic—so with a knee wall height of 140cm (55 inches) instead of 260cm (102 inches). The closet by the eaves side in the dressing room will then turn into a higher chest of drawers. Otherwise, I praise your composition and the adaptation ideas again—the basic approach has largely succeeded.

However, the fundamental procedure is not recommended. Having an architect “deburr” a layman’s self-performance design (even if, as you said, you cleverly assembled modules at least in principle) is generally not a good idea. The portion of the architect’s fee for drawing the floor plan is mostly symbolic, so self-performance (whether creatively or cleverly borrowed and varied) is almost economically pointless.

And you will need a real architect—meaning not just a plan submitter from a construction company. Unfortunately, you must not assume more freedom in your planning from “no development plan”—in some cases, even quite the opposite applies. Personally, I prefer the legal certainty of a difficult and hard-to-interpret development plan over the discretionary scope in the interpretation of a fitting-in requirement. Builders go to court over development plans when the “fault” lies with themselves (i.e., they want to ignore rules that apply to everyone and subjectively consider them excessive), and in §34 zoning areas more often when the building authority arbitrarily exceeds the interpretation of the fitting-in requirement. The frequency of legal clarification is roughly the same.

Oh, one compliment I almost forgot: for the abandoned chimney. It’s a relic from pre-energy-saving regulation houses.

---

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

So, we want to build with an architect. And we would be fine with either staircase option, whether straight or spiral going up. That’s why I didn’t adjust the floor plan on the upper floor. We like the layouts I posted visually best as they are. I already mentioned that the staircases don’t fit exactly as shown. It’s then the architect’s job to integrate and adapt them accordingly.

Unfortunately, we don’t like the upper floor layout from Econ. And the other upper floor plan lacks the walk-in closet, which we would like to have in the indicated position. Please disregard the staircase situation for now; what do you think of the overall floor plans? Also, do you think 7 m² (75 sq ft) is enough for a utility room?