ᐅ Floor plan single-family house approx. 158 sqm with children's bedroom in the attic
Created on: 6 Sep 2024 19:57
A
Abartig
Hello everyone,
Development Plan/Restrictions
Plot size: 713 sqm (7670 sq ft)
Slope: almost flat within the building zone
Site coverage ratio: 0.3
Floor area ratio: 2 (number of full floors as the maximum)
Building zone, building line and boundary: see images
Edge development: none
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 (number of full floors as the maximum)
Roof shape: SD & WD 22°–38° / staggered PD 15°–19°
Architectural style: modern, I would say
Orientation: main ridge direction east-west
Maximum heights/limits: FH 745.3 , TH 742.15
Other requirements
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: We are open, so far we like the idea with a children’s room in the attic.
Basement, floors: 2 full floors, basement not included in the budget.
Number of people, ages: 4 persons, 34, 31, 3, 1
Space needs on ground floor: We would like a playroom (guest room) on the ground floor. First floor: child 1’s room would be an office (see images), 2 children’s bedrooms, 1 master bedroom
Office: family use or home office? Home office on the first floor
Number of guests per year: about 1
Modern construction method
Open kitchen with kitchen island
Number of dining seats: one indoors
Fireplace: no, KfW 300
Balcony, roof terrace: –
Garage, carport: double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse
Other wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why certain things should or should not be included
House Design
Planner: architect
What do you particularly like? Why? Living/dining room faces south, kitchen with island
What don’t you like? Why? Utility room width of 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) seems a bit narrow, hallway 1 m (3 ft 3 in) I am not quite sure about, no covered connection from garage to house
Estimated price according to architect/planner: 600,000
Personal price limit for the house including fixtures: 600,000
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump (KfW 300)
If you have to give up something, which details/extensions
— can you do without: second bathroom on the first floor
— can you not do without: 2 children’s bedrooms and 1 office, double garage
Why is the design like it is now? For example,
Recommendation from the architect, there is only one direct neighbor to the east (privacy). That’s why the garage was placed on the east side and an inner courtyard is created.
What do you think?
The 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) width of the utility room bothers me. Do you think everything will fit there?
According to DIN 18012, the room width should be at least 1.80 m (6 ft), or am I mistaken?
As a precaution, we have also planned the washing machine on the upper floor.
Is a 1 m (3 ft 3 in) wide hallway sufficient? Are there any specific requirements for hallway width for KfW 300 standards?
Unfortunately, the preliminary design lacks dimensions. I have added them afterwards.
Thank you very much for your support.
Best regards
Development Plan/Restrictions
Plot size: 713 sqm (7670 sq ft)
Slope: almost flat within the building zone
Site coverage ratio: 0.3
Floor area ratio: 2 (number of full floors as the maximum)
Building zone, building line and boundary: see images
Edge development: none
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 (number of full floors as the maximum)
Roof shape: SD & WD 22°–38° / staggered PD 15°–19°
Architectural style: modern, I would say
Orientation: main ridge direction east-west
Maximum heights/limits: FH 745.3 , TH 742.15
Other requirements
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: We are open, so far we like the idea with a children’s room in the attic.
Basement, floors: 2 full floors, basement not included in the budget.
Number of people, ages: 4 persons, 34, 31, 3, 1
Space needs on ground floor: We would like a playroom (guest room) on the ground floor. First floor: child 1’s room would be an office (see images), 2 children’s bedrooms, 1 master bedroom
Office: family use or home office? Home office on the first floor
Number of guests per year: about 1
Modern construction method
Open kitchen with kitchen island
Number of dining seats: one indoors
Fireplace: no, KfW 300
Balcony, roof terrace: –
Garage, carport: double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse
Other wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why certain things should or should not be included
House Design
Planner: architect
What do you particularly like? Why? Living/dining room faces south, kitchen with island
What don’t you like? Why? Utility room width of 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) seems a bit narrow, hallway 1 m (3 ft 3 in) I am not quite sure about, no covered connection from garage to house
Estimated price according to architect/planner: 600,000
Personal price limit for the house including fixtures: 600,000
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump (KfW 300)
If you have to give up something, which details/extensions
— can you do without: second bathroom on the first floor
— can you not do without: 2 children’s bedrooms and 1 office, double garage
Why is the design like it is now? For example,
Recommendation from the architect, there is only one direct neighbor to the east (privacy). That’s why the garage was placed on the east side and an inner courtyard is created.
What do you think?
The 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) width of the utility room bothers me. Do you think everything will fit there?
According to DIN 18012, the room width should be at least 1.80 m (6 ft), or am I mistaken?
As a precaution, we have also planned the washing machine on the upper floor.
Is a 1 m (3 ft 3 in) wide hallway sufficient? Are there any specific requirements for hallway width for KfW 300 standards?
Unfortunately, the preliminary design lacks dimensions. I have added them afterwards.
Thank you very much for your support.
Best regards
So .. I see a few points differently, but I also don’t find it fully satisfactory:
- Use of the courtyard .. for me, this would include the kitchen on the left side of the plan and the living room on the right side of the plan
- Child 1 (the 8 sqm (86 sq ft) room) is supposed to become an office … I would combine this with the guest room on the ground floor, as having a separate playroom combined with the guest room there probably won’t achieve the desired effect
- Then it would make sense to have a utility room on the upper floor and thus one fewer room
- The second levels in children’s rooms 2 and 3 are usually quite popular with kids from about 6 or 7 years old. My niece had a similar room. At preschool age, the rooms are large enough to place a bed on the lower level first. What I notice, however, is that where space-saving stairs lead up to the respective “bed level,” there is no standing height when coming up. So at least the roof windows should be adjusted accordingly. Also, it should definitely be checked whether the roof pitch needs to be flattened further, because in my opinion the maximum ridge height is exceeded. And if it does need to be made flatter, then it might be more of a crawl space under the roof and maybe less desirable. At least my niece’s room had about 2 m (6.5 ft) of standing height across the width and a large gable window. She liked hanging out there with her friends. The areas here will probably be less inviting for that
- I really don’t like the rather narrow corridor downstairs and upstairs
- The utility/technical room should be fully planned out in detail with the planned equipment (connections, ventilation?, heating components) to check if it’s practical as planned
- Covered area between garage and front door – what is the purpose?
Thank you again for your comments!
A quick note: Yes, the garage is located on the west side; I made a mistake when writing earlier.
I will discuss with the architect at the next meeting how this will be structurally resolved and ask if any considerations have been made so far.
What do you mean by the maximum ridge height? According to the development plan, it is:
Max ridge height (FHmax): 745.30 meters (2445.5 feet); max eave height (THmax): 742.15 meters (2435.2 feet)
In the draft plan it is:
Ridge: 744.9 meters (2443.8 feet); eave: 742.15 meters (2435.2 feet)
Or am I misunderstanding? Or do you mean that if I change the roof pitch, the ridge height might be exceeded?
I find it difficult to draw, especially when it comes to designing the ground floor and upper floor so that everything works well. I have tried anyway and implemented your suggestions as best as I could. I have not added the windows yet.
What I really do not like is the bathroom on the upper floor. Does anyone perhaps have an idea or even a sketch?
What bothers me is that the streetlight is only 5.6 meters (18.4 feet) from the property boundary, so the driveway is somewhat narrow. Does this work, or would you recommend having it relocated?
What else can I optimize, or has my optimization made things worse?
A quick note: Yes, the garage is located on the west side; I made a mistake when writing earlier.
I will discuss with the architect at the next meeting how this will be structurally resolved and ask if any considerations have been made so far.
What do you mean by the maximum ridge height? According to the development plan, it is:
Max ridge height (FHmax): 745.30 meters (2445.5 feet); max eave height (THmax): 742.15 meters (2435.2 feet)
In the draft plan it is:
Ridge: 744.9 meters (2443.8 feet); eave: 742.15 meters (2435.2 feet)
Or am I misunderstanding? Or do you mean that if I change the roof pitch, the ridge height might be exceeded?
I find it difficult to draw, especially when it comes to designing the ground floor and upper floor so that everything works well. I have tried anyway and implemented your suggestions as best as I could. I have not added the windows yet.
What I really do not like is the bathroom on the upper floor. Does anyone perhaps have an idea or even a sketch?
What bothers me is that the streetlight is only 5.6 meters (18.4 feet) from the property boundary, so the driveway is somewhat narrow. Does this work, or would you recommend having it relocated?
What else can I optimize, or has my optimization made things worse?
Abartig schrieb:
Quick info: Yes, the garage is located on the west side, . . And there’s a street lamp. Because of the lamp, the garage had to keep some distance from the neighbor’s property. That explains the setback.
Abartig schrieb:
What bothers me is that the street lamp is only 5.6m (18.4 ft) from the property line, so the driveway is somewhat narrow—does this work? You should let go of the idea that a driveway has to be as wide as the garage. After all, you can steer the vehicle within your own property. The length of the driveway should not cause any issues.
Abartig schrieb:
Would you have it relocated? Still, I would actually recommend applying to have it moved so the garage can be built right on the boundary line.
Abartig schrieb:
What else can I optimize, or have my attempts made things worse? Well, first of all, if I were you, I would reconsider whether a straight staircase is really necessary. You don’t gain much from the look of a straight staircase—not only because of the narrow hallway but also because of the cabinets—and secondly, it takes up your hallway space. You can conveniently place a storage room under a winding staircase. I would remove the staircase from the hallway to save space. It doesn’t get better when you draw little white boxes “there at the entrance” that have nothing to do with proper wardrobe cabinets. And yet you have to enter the house single file without any room to take off jackets.
The idea of coming home, taking off outdoor clothing, or getting ready to go out just isn’t working here.
Then, I would think about your daily routine, how you use the courtyard, and the sun terrace.
I actually see the courtyard more as a dining terrace, and positioning the kitchen there would kill two birds with one stone—also creating a shorter path from the entrance to the kitchen. It might even help to give up a corner in the south for a better entrance and thus a better overall floor plan.
Upstairs, the children’s rooms are much better, so you can have a bed downstairs as well. But be aware that even in the office, the headroom near the stairs will be only about 1.20/1.40m (3.9/4.6 ft). This means that combined with the stairs and bending over, you might stumble. So this is not an optimal storage space.
Otherwise, my only advice is to have the architect revisit the plan. Keep in mind that his dimensions are for the shell structure (shell-in-place). You still have to add things like plaster and tiles on top of the wall. For the staircase, the railing can add thickness as well. With brackets or posts, this could add another 10cm (4 inches).
It seems to me that this urban villa floor plan has been narrowed down to the point where the dimensions "just barely fit." However, in my view, "just barely fitting" is not what people want to have, live in, or build nowadays. This should be kept in mind.
These corridors, as were still common in older houses—where, for example, a basement staircase under the stairs was separated from the hallway, leaving a narrow passage—no longer reflect life in the 3rd millennium.
“Narrow” houses are arranged differently. The lower limit is a standard terraced house; you can imagine it: entrance side, meaning the short wall as usable space, then using the full width for living areas.
There is no fixed guideline as to when rooms can be arranged differently.
I actually like narrow houses a lot. But you have to free yourself from the urban villa floor plan for that.
Honestly, I’m only noticing now that the open living area is just 3.63 meters (12 feet) high. Moreover, there isn’t even space for a TV stand. Overall, this is unsatisfactory. Only the kitchen area has a nice floor space. However, this could be smaller if you omit the (as was once cleverly called) unnecessarily expanded aircraft carrier. In my opinion, the island is too much for an open living space just under 40 square meters (430 square feet). But I think I already mentioned in another post that the kitchen is too large and impractically designed.
At the same time, there are no other storage options—no closet, sideboard, dresser, or anything a family needs. To be more precise, there is hardly any usable space on the ground floor.
These corridors, as were still common in older houses—where, for example, a basement staircase under the stairs was separated from the hallway, leaving a narrow passage—no longer reflect life in the 3rd millennium.
“Narrow” houses are arranged differently. The lower limit is a standard terraced house; you can imagine it: entrance side, meaning the short wall as usable space, then using the full width for living areas.
There is no fixed guideline as to when rooms can be arranged differently.
I actually like narrow houses a lot. But you have to free yourself from the urban villa floor plan for that.
Honestly, I’m only noticing now that the open living area is just 3.63 meters (12 feet) high. Moreover, there isn’t even space for a TV stand. Overall, this is unsatisfactory. Only the kitchen area has a nice floor space. However, this could be smaller if you omit the (as was once cleverly called) unnecessarily expanded aircraft carrier. In my opinion, the island is too much for an open living space just under 40 square meters (430 square feet). But I think I already mentioned in another post that the kitchen is too large and impractically designed.
At the same time, there are no other storage options—no closet, sideboard, dresser, or anything a family needs. To be more precise, there is hardly any usable space on the ground floor.
ypg schrieb:
It seems to me that an urban villa floor plan has been slimmed down so much that it "just barely fits" dimension-wise.That would explain the criticized ceiling heights, as putting a pitched roof cap on a single-family villa is usually not possible or is a recipe for a disastrous outcome.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics