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:
That’s how I thought about it too, until it was explained that the permitted eave height of 4.20m (13 ft 9 in) would be exceeded with a higher room height on the upper floor.No, the eave height in #78 and #165 is exactly the same at 4.13m (13 ft 7 in) and is not affected by the desired increase of the attic room height by 10cm (4 inches). The attic ceiling, the collar beams, and the main purlins would be raised proportionally, while the room height in the loft space would be reduced accordingly. klabauter8614 schrieb:
With my basic geometry, the eave height depends on the ridge height and roof pitch, not on the ceiling below the eave. Have I misunderstood the definition of eave height?Here, the eave height depends on the ground floor room height, the ceiling height between ground and upper floors, and the knee wall height; with the same roof pitch, the ridge height would increase with the building depth. The eave height is only slightly influenced by roof pitch and wall thickness in front of the foot purlins. But most likely, there’s a misunderstanding between you and the planner.However, as I said: I don’t think this increase in attic room height justifies the effort for redesign. Changes like these, driven by personal preferences, usually cause inconsistencies in document management, and later parts on site don’t fit together because the masons and carpenters worked from different plans.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861426 Oct 2024 21:4711ant schrieb:
Also, you had a wall construction chosen where it would have been better if the structural builder had been involved from the start. How should I imagine this in practice? The first time a company is actively involved in the whole process is after the tender. I can’t just approach a structural builder beforehand and ask for help with planning the wall construction and then exclude them again afterward.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
How should I practically imagine this? The first time a company actively gets involved in the entire process is after the tender. I can’t just go to any structural builder beforehand and ask for help planning the wall construction, then pull out again afterward. That is exactly the problem when a planner can’t decide whether to design a monolithic structure and leave the contractor freely selectable, or focus on a specific "personal" wall build (which then points directly to their preferred supplier). Both together—meaning a wall design as an "architect’s edition" and an unrestricted open tender—don’t work well. If you bring a wall build recipe like "Forelle Müllerin vegan & halal" to a structural builder whose standard practice is a wall design like "Coq au Calvados," you risk complications due to unexpected detail connections. And/or the architect (in that case, definitely follow my formula "3 + 5 = 8"!) will have to produce more extensive detailed drawings and supervise construction more intensively.
By the way, I still haven’t clearly understood which of the two masonry shells is supposed to be the "master" to align with the 8-meter grid. If the masons are supposed to "decide," good luck!
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861427 Oct 2024 10:17Your response relates to the concept, but my question concerns the practical side. I understand the possible consequences you described. The architect and I know 3-4 structural contractors from the immediate area who mostly build the wall structure as described. What I don’t understand is why I should contact only one of them to “assist” with the building permit/planning permission phase, but without a commitment to build with them later on, since I still want to obtain and compare offers from the others. Why would anyone do that? Or would that assistance have to be paid for separately again?
I did not intend to request quotes from structural contractors based on a preference for monolithic or plastered wall construction. Fortunately, building is still ongoing in the area, so you can practically watch some of them working live and see how smoothly it goes. Having a chat with the workers is invaluable.
I did not intend to request quotes from structural contractors based on a preference for monolithic or plastered wall construction. Fortunately, building is still ongoing in the area, so you can practically watch some of them working live and see how smoothly it goes. Having a chat with the workers is invaluable.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
The architect and I know 3-4 shell builders from the immediate area who mostly construct the described wall build-up.But you’re probably mistakenly grouping the 43 to 48 cm (17 to 19 inches) cavity walls together. Still, good luck with that! klabauter8614 schrieb:
I just don’t understand why I should contact only one of them to “help” with the permit planning, without any commitment to build with them, since I still want to get and compare quotes from the others later. Why would anyone do that? Or would the help have to be paid for separately?I never meant permit planning here either. I was already exploring at the decision stage which candidates you would most likely build with — and then coordinate their wall constructions accordingly. Of course, they shouldn’t be expected to coach the architect for free. klabauter8614 schrieb:
I didn’t intend to get quotes from shell builders who prefer monolithic or rendered wall constructions.Only then can the choice of shell builder remain completely open. What is your exact position regarding this specific wall build-up and the key question of which masonry leaf should set the pace here?
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Fortunately, construction is still ongoing in the area, so you can practically watch some live builds and see how smoothly everything goes. Having a chat with the workers is worth its weight in gold.Exactly, that is highly recommended.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861428 Oct 2024 15:01Ah, so basically filter out the shell builders early in the process and choose one to assist, but without a commitment to the construction. After that, proceed with the regular tendering process.
Exact details of the masonry have not been discussed yet; I only know from other projects that the running bond pattern (staggered by a quarter brick length) is standard.
Exact details of the masonry have not been discussed yet; I only know from other projects that the running bond pattern (staggered by a quarter brick length) is standard.
Similar topics