ᐅ Floor Plan for a Single-Family Home, 240 m², with Partially Built-Over Garage

Haus 42 schrieb:

• ⚡ means high voltage, W (waste) water

Cute. What is the purpose of this labeling? The wastewater planning usually comes at the end.

Haus 42 schrieb:

This is a separate one, inspired by forum discussions,

Then you should be aware that essential information is missing. What are the building envelope limits? How about filling out this questionnaire?
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-planung-unbedingt-vor-beitrag-erstellung-lesen.11714/

Haus 42 schrieb:

very generous” house (architect’s comment),

The translation would be: way too huge – the spaces are not well thought out.

Haus 42 schrieb:

how to get more out of it beyond the floor plan

Haus 42 schrieb:

essential effects through small changes

Do I understand correctly that we are now dealing with a somewhat poorly planned design full of mistakes from you, which is now being redrawn neatly by a designer, and we are supposed to come up with a few small highlights like a useful bay window to somehow make this design look nice?

As you can tell: I don’t think it’s good, especially not with your specifications. You don’t want to build an expensive house, yet you waste living space and the real distribution of wet rooms as if they cost nothing. I am always an advocate of cost-effective building, where the simplicity of the rooms is appealing, for example through lighting or sight lines.

In principle, I find the location and orientation poorly thought out: every visitor has to look for parking off the property, and there is a large lawn area unused at the back. If the ridge orientation is not fixed and the building envelope allows for some setback at the rear, I would rotate the house by 90 degrees so the children’s rooms get southeastern or southwestern exposure. On the ground floor, the southwestern area relaxes, allowing outdoor space along two sides of the house. The fitness room should have no sloping ceilings; otherwise, balancing exercises are not possible. Yoga is fine. Entrance facing a sofa wall or TV is not ideal, nor is a kitchen without a window in the work area.
The children’s rooms have 30cm (12 inches) cabinets drawn in but no wardrobes. The fitness room and guest room are larger than the children’s rooms… well…
If I look for load-bearing walls, this might get expensive. Fixed doors do not allow comfortable placement of wardrobes behind them. Only the bedroom has an extra corner niche, which shows that little fits overall. Such a niche also appears in the technical room to fit the door to the guest area.
Is this a platform staircase? Then it is too short. Steps should be spread over at least 370cm (146 inches), preferably 400cm (157 inches). If you plan a window above the staircase, the hallway should have the same orientation to be naturally lit and not a dark transverse corridor. A hallway with natural light is already a quarter of the solution.
A window in the garage near the setback zone is also not allowed.
If you follow some common planning principles, you can design a nice house without fancy details. What does your trusted architect say? Just a redraw with some technical corrections? Feasibility? Many things are feasible, but whether you should build everything that is technically possible for around 700,000 - 800,000 euros, that’s something to reconsider.

ypg schrieb:

If the ridge direction is not fixed and the building envelope allows for some space at the back, I would orient the house rotated by 90 degrees,

But of course with a newly designed house plan.

ypg schrieb:

Am I correct in understanding that we are now supposed to take a not very well thought-out design full of mistakes from you, which is being finalized by a planner, and come up with a few minor highlights like a practical bay window to make this design somewhat appealing?

I see it differently at least: that the design is full of errors is our perception. I fear that from the original poster’s perspective this is a genuine view, that this 42nd draft is already so close to the ideal solution that with our input version 42.1 (or 42.2 without it) would be ready for submission – hence probably also the detailed planning of utilities and their outlets. “Practical bay windows” sounds to me very close to a nearly perfect contradiction.

ypg schrieb:

As you can probably tell: I don’t like it, especially not with your specifications.
You don’t want to build an expensive house, but you waste floor areas and truly distributed wet rooms as if they cost nothing.

Yes, the plan and the program of requirements form somewhat of a humorous combination here. An architect would be (tutto completto = design phases 1 to 8) cheaper than a dozen square meters of overly generous floor area drawn out from a tube (which doesn’t become cheaper due to poor placement and orientation).

---

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

Is there an aerial photo? People usually like to see the surroundings.

So little dialogue doesn’t make sense. You should respond to questions. I’ll wait for your answer.

Otherwise, I fully agree with @ypg. I already had a draft of the rotated house axis but wanted to see the surroundings first.

The design is flawed – this is obvious from the fact that hardly any room can be furnished in a practical way; it is not attractive either – and far too many square meters (square feet) are 'wasted'.

Thank you for the many comments!

Regarding the questions:

• Budget: Within the expected range (700k–800k has already been mentioned), we can manage that well.
• Structural engineering: I will of course have to rely on experts – if it’s not feasible or becomes absurdly expensive, then the design will simply be discarded.
• Yes, the plot has been purchased.
• The distance between the garage and the neighbor is not regulated but intentionally designed as an access.
• The mentioned architects are employees from the circle of friends.

What I already wrote (in other words):

• There is no slope.
• The building must be set back about 5m (16 feet) from the street, and this is roughly the case in the plan. (I only know this building line as a boundary.)

Costruttrice schrieb:

I find the sofa area extremely uncomfortable. From the front door you see directly onto the sofa, and I wouldn’t want to sit with my back to the open passage.

kbt09 schrieb:

I agree, I would swap the kitchen and sofa areas. The current area between the sofa and the open plan entrance is basically a hallway and somehow uncomfortable for whoever is sitting on the sofa.

I am missing south/east sunlight in the living area.

I can understand these concerns. We will probably have to forego the pantry in favor of a window and swap the kitchen and sofa areas for a more sheltered seating area. The original wish was to be able to look out from the sofa into the garden (which is quite bright despite its northwest orientation), but the sofa doesn’t have to be right in front of it for that.

ypg schrieb:

Do I understand correctly that we now have a somewhat poorly thought-out design with many mistakes, which is now being cleaned up by a planner, and that we are supposed to come up with some minor highlights like a meaningful bay window to make the design somewhat appealing?

Identifying these mistakes would of course also be helpful. But I can’t know beforehand if everyone finds the design unacceptable – you will probably allow me some incompetence. ;-) Of course, polemics also affect me, but the more abstract the criticism, the more likely I am to continue down my supposed path to ruin.

ypg schrieb:

You don’t want to build an expensive house, but you mess around with living areas and logically arranged wet rooms as if they cost nothing.

It is clear that it will be expensive. But unnecessary extra costs would bother me less than a functional deficiency. Waste may be present, and it’s true that I like to keep options open and therefore tend to rectangles, which a cleverly optimized plan might not have. (In that sense, I’m surprised by the criticism of “awkwardness,” which only occurs in one or two places.) However, non-furnishability would of course be bad – but given the wide range of spatial design options, I cannot understand this.

ypg schrieb:

In principle, I think the location and orientation are not well thought out: every visitor has to find parking outside the property, and there is a large lawn area unused at the back.

The assumption is that it will not remain unused. We accept a few disadvantages regarding the garden. Another reason for the orientation of the house was originally some concern about the railway line, which runs 70m (230 feet) away behind the next row of houses in a cutting. Since it runs only rarely and is not particularly noticeable acoustically, that alone probably wouldn’t be a reason. But we want a large garden separated from the street. We did consider a rotated version but discarded it at the time.

ypg schrieb:

The fitness room should be free of sloped ceilings; otherwise, balance exercises won’t be possible.

The room is planned to have a dormer across the entire width.

ypg schrieb:

Is that a platform staircase? If so, it’s too short. Steps should be spread over at least 370cm (12 feet), preferably 400cm (13 feet).

It is currently drawn at 420cm (13.8 feet) – maybe the marked wall lengths are confusing.

11ant schrieb:

I understand it differently at least: the design being error-ridden is our perception. I fear that from the OP’s point of view this is a genuinely serious perception, and that the 42nd design is already so close to the “eureka” moment that with our input version 42.1 (or 42.2 without it) would be ready for submission.

My arrogance is less about seeing my own ideas as a “eureka” moment, and more about expecting that even professional designs have pros and cons. Evaluating them personally could well result in a bay window being desirable.

hanghaus2023 schrieb:

Is there an aerial photo? People like to see the surroundings.

Haus 42 schrieb:

There is no slope.

Here we have the questioners’ self-perceptions, what I’d call “bad experiences,” if you catch my drift...

Haus 42 schrieb:

The building must be set back about 5 meters (16 feet) from the street, and according to the plan, it roughly is. (The only boundary I know of is this building line.)

Hopefully and most likely it’s just a building boundary.

Haus 42 schrieb:

The architects mentioned are employees from the circle of friends.

They should still be able to quickly sketch something smarter on a napkin ;-) especially since we’re already talking about significant mistakes on the basic level of placement and orientation.

Haus 42 schrieb:

Pointing out these errors would of course be helpful. But I can’t know in advance whether everyone will find the design unacceptable—surely you’ll grant me some incompetence here. ;-) Of course, polemics impress me too, but the more abstract the criticism, the more likely I am to continue walking into my supposed ruin.

See above; realizing one’s incompetence is the first step toward consulting an architect—especially one who might employ a friend. The ruin is by no means just “supposed.”

Haus 42 schrieb:

It’s clear that it will be expensive. But I’d be less annoyed by unnecessary extra costs than by a functional deficit. Wastefulness might be present, and it’s true that I like to keep options open and therefore tend toward rectangles, which wouldn’t appear in a cleverly optimized plan. (In this way, I’m puzzled by the criticism of the “irregular shape,” which only appears in one or two spots.)

Unnecessary extra costs begin with what I’d politely call a “willingness” to accept unused square meters arising from planning inexperience, which—when translated into built results—would cost more than the entire architect’s fee. By the way, the irregular shape, as noted before, is by no means confined to minor, trivial pain points; it actually starts quite drastically at the half-embedded garage.

Haus 42 schrieb:

The assumption is that it will not lie fallow. We accept some disadvantages for the garden. Another reason for the house orientation was originally a certain fear of the railway line, which runs 70 meters (230 feet) away behind the next row of houses in a trench. Since it only runs rarely and is not very noticeable acoustically, that alone wouldn’t be a reason. [...] We did consider a rotated version at one point but discarded it then.

That a non-south-facing garden is also appreciated here, I have already mentioned with praise. The railway line is an important reason to request a comprehensive and large-scale representation of the surroundings, and the way it’s mentioned here really deserves harsh criticism. Let me say it clearly again: please show a selection of the designs 1 to 41.

Haus 42 schrieb:

My arrogance is less about seeing my own ideas as a “Columbus’ egg” and more about expecting that professional designs also have their pros and cons.

I perceived less arrogance and more simple tunnel vision, which especially in amateur design developments takes a distinct form. Sometimes this creates a sort of “Stockholm syndrome” of blindly falling in love with “brilliant” planning errors.

Haus 42 schrieb:

In personal consideration, a bay window can also turn out to be desirable.

A bay window “to fix the staircase fitting better into the floor plan framework” can often start a domino effect akin to the Loriot sketch with the crooked picture frame.

Haus 42 schrieb:

But we want a large garden, separated from the street.

That is also a major pitfall, a classic setup for spectacular Pyrrhic victories.

I would start any cleverly optimized plan not only completely without such constraints but also otherwise absolutely from scratch—without any leftover ideas from previous draft attempts. Conceptually, you should begin without drawings, starting with the room program and then refining it. Then move on to the upper floor, followed by the ground floor. And keep the main thing the main thing: family first, cars second. “And always think of the reader,” as Helmut Markwort put it nicely: build a HOUSE, not a privacy fence.

And very importantly: all this is just for your own experiment and enjoyment at first. The result should only be compared with the professional preliminary design once that is finished. Do NOT bring any plan drawings to the initial meeting!

---

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