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.
K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 22:47K a t j a schrieb:
The question was actually whether there are currently any worthwhile subsidies available? Weren’t most of the funding programs mostly discontinued at some point or were their amounts rather insignificant compared to the expenses? Or is it still worth it? Kfw300 can still be worth it if you act quickly. The rest are mostly not very interesting. NRW.Bank also offers some interesting funding programs, but in our experience, processing times can be 3 to 6 months.
K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 22:49K a t j a schrieb:
Oh really? Did you hire them yourselves? That’s a bit disappointing, isn’t it?Yupyupyup, what do you think is the reason I’m looking for other opinions and here (good decision). My gut feeling told me it shouldn’t work out this way against expectations.K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 22:5211ant schrieb:
I still don’t see which release version you wanted to keep the ground floor from, but I won’t ask a third time.And I had replied each time that it was the upper floor that should remain unchanged, not the ground floor. It was supposed to be different from all previous designs. Where is the misunderstanding?
klabauter8614 schrieb:
And each time I had responded that the upper floor should remain as is, not the ground floor. It was supposed to be different from all previous designs. Where is the misunderstanding? I probably thought ...
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Here is the latest design. Actually, we said to keep the upper floor as before, but okay. As for the ground floor, I’m not sure. was a typo, since it is the upper floor that has undergone so many changes that it must be considered the one intended to reflect the modification, while the ground floor still largely resembles the original design. So I will rephrase my question: from which release version was the retained floor supposed to originate?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
klabauter8614 schrieb:
KfW 300 can still be worthwhile if you act quickly. The rest are mostly not very interesting. NRW.Bank also has some interesting funding programs, but sometimes with processing times of 3-6 months here. P.S.: I don’t know exactly which funding program, but today I read in the newspaper that applicants are informed about a funding pool that is likely already depleted.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 23:1711ant schrieb:
I still haven’t seen which release version of the ground floor you wanted to keep answered, but I won’t ask a third time. For a glare-free monitor, a venetian blind is sufficient; there’s no need to position the office out of the sun for that.
You (and the planner) still seem not to understand what preliminary draft and design mean. A preliminary draft is not made once per round or extra round, but only once in one, two, or three variants during the entire house planning process. Exactly one of these is chosen to be further developed, and all others immediately end up in the project office’s digital trash bin forever. All change discussions take place on that one preliminary draft, in a single meeting, not back and forth, possibly lasting weeks but in a dialogue (exchange of views), not ping-pong (alternating speeches), much less multiple times. And all of this must be completed before a draft (singular!) is then made from the preliminary draft. After this point, there are no further drafts, only revisions. You can find the design seminar on "Bauen jetzt," for example, in "A Housebuilding Roadmap, Also for You: the HOAI Phase Model!" Of course, you can do things differently if you have too much money, time, or nerve (or want a “planner” to experiment and learn). *
Although you should still carry out design phases 5 to 7 with the architect after obtaining the building permit / planning permission, it only makes sense if you haven’t already committed to a general contractor (GC), neither in principle nor to a specific one.
Katja probably meant that only the GC knows the "secret" of which wall build-up (whose thickness is relevant here) they have planned for the roof.
Furthermore, I question the masonry outer shell for the garage structure; I would have only planned that for the house and clad the garage with facing bricks.
A freelance architect, really? I can’t believe it. That is slave-labor planning quality. What a pity. Hopefully, it’s at least significantly below the price list! (or even level 4 because of brick cladding?)
*) In this specific case, I would deviate from the described approach as follows:
1. Discard the previous drafts and no longer use them as the basis for any improvements.
2. Declare one successful draft (for example, Katja’s draft from release version post #86) as the new and only valid preliminary draft, and only develop that further.
The trash bin as a document management tool is greatly underestimated!I obviously don’t fully understand this yet since I’ve never experienced it before and am just developing a sense of what is correct and what works for me and what doesn’t. There is a big difference for me between “intellectually understood” and “experienced and internalized.” But thanks for the summary; that is roughly what I had imagined. Especially “together,” not ping-pong.
Price list, level 4, train station?