ᐅ Single-family house floor plan, 1 full story, utilities and natural lighting
Created on: 22 Jul 2024 08:21
K
klabauter8614
Hello, I would like to gather feedback on the floor plan in order to finalize the design. We don’t have sections or elevations yet, but all other drawings are attached (house shown schematically on the site plan). Thanks.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 473m² (5,089 ft²)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: maximum 2 without garage
Number of floors: 1 full floor
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style
Orientation: Roof facing NNE - SSW
Maximum heights / limits: eave height 4.2m (13.8 ft), ridge height 9.5m (31.2 ft)
Further requirements: only renewable energy sources, infiltration trench for stormwater
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, floors: no basement (groundwater level at 1m (3.3 ft) depth), 1 full floor
Number of occupants, ages: 4, aged 40-40-7-2 years
Space needs on ground floor and upper floor: Guesst room on the ground floor, office upstairs
Office use: family use or home office? Home office
Number of guest stays per year: 2 nights per week by one parent (also for coming years), parents-in-law stay several weeks annually
Open or closed layout
Traditional or modern construction
Open kitchen, kitchen island: semi-open (sliding door), kitchen island
Number of fixed dining seats: 6 fixed, expandable
Fireplace: no
Music/speaker wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: herb garden
Additional wishes/special points/daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions
House Design
Planner: synergy between architect and client, now 4th draft
What do you particularly like? Why? Guest room and WC + shower, similar existing layout already working (although a bed is drawn, it is actually a sofa bed), office on the north side, guest room size more than sufficient, wardrobe by the entrance, living room bright, washing machine + dryer upstairs.
What don’t you like? Why?
- Utility room is half unusable due to wardrobe protrusion (which is actually sensible) so it is too small. Attic storage needs to be moved from the garage into the thermal envelope inside the utility room, indoor unit could stay there. The mechanical ventilation system would also need to be installed in the utility room. Possible solution: enlarge kitchen to the rear and expand utility room accordingly. This would make the house larger though. No other solutions discussed yet.
- Stairs are too steep; architect now proposes a rise/run of 17.2cm/26cm (6.8"/10.2"), which may be borderline regarding comfortable step depth.
- Daylight in children’s rooms might be low due to west-facing windows and roughly 12.5% window-to-floor area ratio; simulation might be needed. Skylights wouldn’t significantly improve this; only a dormer and smaller gable windows would.
- As drawn, the kitchen island layout is not suitable for me; passage from utility room too narrow, should be moved to the opposite side, with sink and window to the left.
- Air conditioning would still be needed in the bedroom and children’s rooms, but with the current window and furniture arrangement this looks impractical.
- Shower upstairs located under sloped ceiling, not necessary but a minor point.
- Skylight in guest WC is not at head height, should be slightly higher, also a minor detail.
- Bathroom door upstairs should open outwards.
- Storage under the stairs is still missing.
- Partition wall in garage is unnecessary.
Cost estimate from architect/planner: unknown
Personal price limit for house including fixtures: 650,000
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you must give up something, which features or extensions
- Can you give up: walk-in closet
- Cannot give up: office, guest room
Why is the design like it is now?
Own design developed based on space requirements plus architect’s counter proposal
What do you consider especially good or problematic?
Main issues to resolve are utility room + technical space and daylight.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 473m² (5,089 ft²)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: maximum 2 without garage
Number of floors: 1 full floor
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style
Orientation: Roof facing NNE - SSW
Maximum heights / limits: eave height 4.2m (13.8 ft), ridge height 9.5m (31.2 ft)
Further requirements: only renewable energy sources, infiltration trench for stormwater
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, floors: no basement (groundwater level at 1m (3.3 ft) depth), 1 full floor
Number of occupants, ages: 4, aged 40-40-7-2 years
Space needs on ground floor and upper floor: Guesst room on the ground floor, office upstairs
Office use: family use or home office? Home office
Number of guest stays per year: 2 nights per week by one parent (also for coming years), parents-in-law stay several weeks annually
Open or closed layout
Traditional or modern construction
Open kitchen, kitchen island: semi-open (sliding door), kitchen island
Number of fixed dining seats: 6 fixed, expandable
Fireplace: no
Music/speaker wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: herb garden
Additional wishes/special points/daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions
House Design
Planner: synergy between architect and client, now 4th draft
What do you particularly like? Why? Guest room and WC + shower, similar existing layout already working (although a bed is drawn, it is actually a sofa bed), office on the north side, guest room size more than sufficient, wardrobe by the entrance, living room bright, washing machine + dryer upstairs.
What don’t you like? Why?
- Utility room is half unusable due to wardrobe protrusion (which is actually sensible) so it is too small. Attic storage needs to be moved from the garage into the thermal envelope inside the utility room, indoor unit could stay there. The mechanical ventilation system would also need to be installed in the utility room. Possible solution: enlarge kitchen to the rear and expand utility room accordingly. This would make the house larger though. No other solutions discussed yet.
- Stairs are too steep; architect now proposes a rise/run of 17.2cm/26cm (6.8"/10.2"), which may be borderline regarding comfortable step depth.
- Daylight in children’s rooms might be low due to west-facing windows and roughly 12.5% window-to-floor area ratio; simulation might be needed. Skylights wouldn’t significantly improve this; only a dormer and smaller gable windows would.
- As drawn, the kitchen island layout is not suitable for me; passage from utility room too narrow, should be moved to the opposite side, with sink and window to the left.
- Air conditioning would still be needed in the bedroom and children’s rooms, but with the current window and furniture arrangement this looks impractical.
- Shower upstairs located under sloped ceiling, not necessary but a minor point.
- Skylight in guest WC is not at head height, should be slightly higher, also a minor detail.
- Bathroom door upstairs should open outwards.
- Storage under the stairs is still missing.
- Partition wall in garage is unnecessary.
Cost estimate from architect/planner: unknown
Personal price limit for house including fixtures: 650,000
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you must give up something, which features or extensions
- Can you give up: walk-in closet
- Cannot give up: office, guest room
Why is the design like it is now?
Own design developed based on space requirements plus architect’s counter proposal
What do you consider especially good or problematic?
Main issues to resolve are utility room + technical space and daylight.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
So, here is the latest draft. We had actually agreed to keep the upper floor as it was before, but okay. Regarding the ground floor, I’m not quite sure.Which "before" exactly – post #27? The utility connections should be placed in the utility room; putting them in the technical room would cause issues with structural overbuild. The ladder to the attic is less comfortable to use than an extendable ladder – at least for shoe sizes over 29 [hheh]. Is the planner just trying to improve how much you like the floor plan (even if it means sacrificing all other design quality factors), or how else do you explain what I would call poor planning?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861419 Aug 2024 22:28ypg schrieb:
There it is again: the no-go wall. But honestly? We can do without it here.Yes, I could cry 11ant schrieb:
Which "before" do you mean – post #27?“We” means the architect and us. The architect had suggested making two rough sketches of the ground floor (without many details) and leaving the upper floor as it was in the previous design (except for the stairs to the upper floor). Now I only have one detailed design. 11ant schrieb:
The ladder to the attic is more uncomfortable to climb than a pull-out ladder – at least for shoe sizes over 29.The attic stairs are not a priority at the moment; our folding ladder has about a 12cm (5 inch) tread width, so 23cm (9 inch) should be more comfortable. It’s probably intended as a space-saving stair. 11ant schrieb:
The house utilities connections should be located in the utility room; putting them in the technical room would cause an overbuild problem.What overbuild problem? Technical room? The technical installations will be in the utility room (so not in the garage at the back, although that’s still shown in the plans), we already discussed this. What I don’t like immediately is the entrance to the cloakroom and guest WC, which leads through the entire hallway and around a corner. Also, the kitchen island might be too small if I’ve calculated correctly – it looks like 4.52m (15 feet) including the exterior wall, so with 1.20m (4 feet) clearance to the wall, only 1.66m (5.4 feet) remains for the island with the cooktop. Hmm. So it doesn’t exactly warm my heart.
11ant schrieb:
Is the planner only supposed to improve how much you like the floor plan (at the expense of all other design quality aspects), or how does this poor planning come about?Maybe it comes down to synergy, as @ypg already mentioned. So far, we have never drawn and discussed together in the same room; I was only allowed to review what the technical draftsman had created (of course, based on our room program). K a t j a schrieb:
Are the 9.50m (31 foot) ridge height limits in the architect’s plan reached? Is there a section drawing?@K a t j a As you can see, it’s almost maxed out with a 45° pitch.K
klabauter861419 Aug 2024 22:39K a t j a schrieb:
I’ve continued to work on the design a bit and here’s the latest version.
[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-1-vollgeschoss-technik-und-tageslicht-668189-5.jpg"]87199[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-1-vollgeschoss-technik-und-tageslicht-668189-4.jpg"]87198[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-1-vollgeschoss-technik-und-tageslicht-668189-3.jpg"]87197[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-1-vollgeschoss-technik-und-tageslicht-668189-2.jpg"]87196[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-1-vollgeschoss-technik-und-tageslicht-668189-1.jpg"]87195[/ATTACH]
Without the staircase leading up to the attic, you could probably build noticeably smaller without losing much in terms of living quality. Personally, I would skip the conservatory and just extend the wall instead.
What I’m really curious about is how the office would fit on the north side (for example, above the entrance) and what size it would be then. I can’t imagine working there all day either in full sun or completely darkened on the south side.
Do you mean “noticeably smaller” because the staircase is simply extended into the attic in your design? I can imagine that.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
“We” means the architect and us. The architect proposed making two rough sketches of the ground floor (without many details) and leaving the upper floor as it was in the previous design (except for the staircase to the upper floor). Now I only have one design with all the details.My question was which version of the design with this “before” was meant, how you thought the ground floor should remain unchanged.klabauter8614 schrieb:
Maybe it’s about synergy, as @ypg already mentioned. Until now, we have never drawn or discussed together in the same room; I was only allowed to “review” what the technical draftsman had put together (of course already based on our space program).klabauter8614 schrieb:
What kind of building extension, utility room? The technical equipment goes in the utility room (so not at the back of the garage, even though it’s still shown there), we have already discussed that.
What I don’t like at first glance is the entrance to the cloakroom and guest WC through the entire corridor and around the corner. [...] So honestly, that doesn’t warm my heart at all.The COVID lockdowns are over, no one has to conduct video conferences with their planner anymore, and there’s no need for back-and-forth misunderstandings. By building extension, I meant that the service entries under the garage floor into the heating cupboard behind the garage would be covered by the same structure. If that is already clear and the planner still designs a completely different situation, that will cause problems during construction at the latest. Nobody needs plans that force the contractors to improvise right from the start (and which the subsequent trades don’t know about but still try to connect to the plan status).klabauter8614 schrieb:
Yes, I could cryNo, don’t cry, but shout at the planner loudly enough to make him stop being stubborn. A wall that feels like a no-go to you is just the tip of the iceberg; I already see (check forum search) a “Butcher’s house” coming. I see a series of thoughtlessness here (and I’m serious about my warning regarding the steep attic stairs). Ladder rungs and stair treads are not comparable. When that mess is built, you will wish you had chosen the “worse” variant.Change the planner—that will be the highest return on investment of your life. Has he even seen the alternative proposals Katja made, for example?
You cannot fix this with patches. There must be agreement on the preliminary design before it is further developed into the detailed design.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
klabauter8614 schrieb:
@K a t j a As you can see, it’s almost maxed out at 45°.No, you’re missing 7cm (3 inches) at the knee wall, and you’d still have a solid 37cm (15 inches) up to the ridge. But okay, that’s not crucial for a first idea. I don’t find the design totally awful. You already mentioned some points yourself. What bothers me most is the main staircase—19.5cm (7.7 inches) risers must be a joke. It’s often hard to simply add one step to a staircase—the dimensions should fit from the start. We already discussed the access ladder to the attic peak. With the statement klabauter8614 schrieb:
The attic staircase is rather irrelevant at the moment, you’re not helping anyone. Make a decision! Is this okay? Exactly how is the access to the peak supposed to look? It hasn’t been shown again. Should there be a door at the bottom, or how is thermal separation supposed to be handled? Do you want to always heat the entire attic? That can’t be right, can it? Without a clear statement, you won’t get a meaningful result.klabauter8614 schrieb:
What I’m really curious about is how the office would fit on the north side (for example, over the entrance) and how big it would be then. I can’t imagine sitting there all day either in full sun or totally darkened on the south side.The rooms upstairs are already pretty clearly divided. If you move the office to the north side, the staircase is left only on the south side. Then it would be downstairs in the living room. That would be unfortunate. You could try a horizontal arrangement again… no idea if that makes sense.klabauter8614 schrieb:
Do you mean “noticeably smaller” because the staircase just continues further into the attic in your plan? I can imagine that.I believe I already mentioned that you’d probably make better use of the space by using a folding ladder at a hatch into the peak. However, your planner’s narrow stair is already comparable.Similar topics