ᐅ Single-family house floor plan with basement, 150 sqm, only one single-story level permitted

GeraldG schrieb:

...even if the rooms now only receive light from one side.

It doesn’t have to be that way. In a pitched roof, skylights are common. My software only shows them in the “roof view,” which is why they’re unfortunately not visible in the sketches.

What I would also be interested in is a section drawing to compare the heights.

By the way, I would omit the balcony and simply make it a flat-roofed bay window instead.
Additionally, you could consider converting the pantry window into an exterior door to load groceries directly from the car. Usually, I’m against such doors, but in this case it really makes sense in my opinion.

K a t j a schrieb:

Yes, I also think that a red brick facade alone doesn’t make this house a classic Northern style. You’d still need a half-hipped roof with a thatched covering and a bat dormer, right?

A brick facade is probably just the starting point; in my opinion, the next step would be adding divided-light windows.

hanse987 schrieb:

If you don’t mind having a step to the balcony, then go ahead, but it should be included in the plans. Unfortunately, there have been several disappointed homeowners here because they overlooked this detail. The floor structure on the upper floor can be raised to create a level exit, but this also means a lower ceiling height and one more stair step unless the stairs are made steeper. That extra stair step also makes the staircase longer, which affects the floor plan—and that isn’t always a positive impact. Even small details like this can influence your rough planning.

That’s exactly how it is, and based on personal experience, I know this and pass it on to people like you who haven’t encountered it yet!
And for that very reason, the following:

GeraldG schrieb:

The issue with the railing height was not directed at you, and your comment was actually so important/interesting to me that I immediately shared it with my wife because I hadn’t considered it before.

...can lead to the realization that even seemingly insignificant circumstances can have unexpected consequences. In that respect, it’s surprising to read that the apparently inexperienced homeowner comes to this attitude:

GeraldG schrieb:

I thought practical tips would be shared here.
...but that gets filtered out anyway.

...and as a forum participant, you know as a layperson that you apparently don’t understand the impact and importance of some circumstances you consider unnecessary.

It’s not about attacking you because you could have come earlier or maybe want three gables, but it’s important to be able to say this openly.
The point is clearly that an inexperienced client was presented with a really weak design, which you now yourself say only needs small tweaks. The catch is exactly where you strongly disagree—in the timely, consistent, and precise planning of the actual furniture pieces. Everything about your build has an impact, and this must be carefully considered beforehand. If a door is 20cm (8 inches) too far to the left or a window too far to the right, it can become very frustrating later or even require construction corrections because of the irritation it causes. A door opening the wrong way or a poorly planned dressing room on the upper floor would cost you a lot of money to fix properly and would likely annoy you permanently. A clever plan fits an affordable wardrobe; a less clever one might need a custom carpenter’s piece costing five times as much, etc.
Suspecting ill will here deprives you of help that would otherwise be expensive and you might not even get—given your current planning. And precisely because we have to push through these tough issues over and over, participants speak frankly, as this has been said 100 times before. You are not the first here, so don’t despair over the bluntness of some comments, but rather ask yourself why they were that direct. We are not criticizing you, but your planner!!! The planner is paid by you and should put in more effort to help you get your "dream home." We are on your side, hence the criticism of the plan.

From the source of what you found to be the harshest comment now comes a design created with much effort AND imagination as a gift to you, which might help you understand how weak a job your planner has done so far. The same homeowner, the original poster, clearly said this to you about your previous design, which you didn’t want to hear.
So don’t drive people away; listen and consider every critical comment objectively without quickly dismissing it from your novice perspective, because someone took time to help you.
One of my favorite sayings is: “You can’t sing criticism,” and here the criticism was solely aimed at the planner and their at least so far poor work, not at you. The planner is paid for this and should deliver better than a “hobby planner” on a layman’s forum.
Our general contractor’s planner was very friendly but practically clueless professionally. As we saw later, they live in a way as uninspired as we never want to live. Luckily, we got help and invested ourselves heavily, so now we live nicely, even if it’s probably not perfect.
@K a t j a My compliments. The important criticisms and especially the staircase are very well solved here; based on this, something nice could develop for the original poster.
I especially like the staircase solution, as well as the offset at the end of the kitchen, and this also makes a pantry sensible, if you want one. With this plan, I would even consider removing the door to the open living space entirely, but of course, that depends on personal preference and probably how you feel about children.

Great job!

GeraldG schrieb:

I reread all the posts, and indeed, on first recall, the comments seemed much less critical than on a second reading.

You started the thread under the mistaken impression that the design was already solid and you just wanted suggestions for improvement. But the fact is, laypeople often don’t recognize how flawed what they’re being offered really is. And it probably exceeds your imagination that someone with four decades of planning experience can tell in less than a minute that the design took off prematurely.

GeraldG schrieb:

Well, because the house isn’t built yet. So I would still consider the current moment the right time. And without the initial design, you wouldn’t even know what to focus on in the next one 😀

No, you should have presented a preliminary design first. Instead, you either developed a flawed preliminary design into the full design or skipped the preliminary design entirely (which all draftsmen and increasingly young architects do). That’s why I’m saying: I will only comment on a new preliminary design here because anything else would be professionally unsound.

GeraldG schrieb:

Sure. Tomorrow I’ll forward Katja’s floor plan to my planner. Let’s see what he comes up with. I actually spent 1–2 hours really studying this floor plan and think I like it better than ours, especially the upper floor with the stairs in the bay window is definitely nicer for us,

No, better not. Your planner will just note that Katja’s design is to be used as a new basis for further refinement. As much as I agree that Katja’s design is clearly better, it still has a fundamental flaw: it tries to salvage the existing draft. Instead, you should get your planner to methodically develop a completely new preliminary design and discuss it while it’s still just a sketch!

hanse987 schrieb:

The floor structure on the upper floor can be raised to achieve a level exit.

I would rather lower the ceiling in that area (but just as a side note; as mentioned, a restart is really needed here).

---

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

11ant schrieb:


..., it does have a fundamental mistake: namely, obviously trying to salvage the original design. You should instead encourage your planner to methodically develop a new preliminary draft and then discuss it while it is still just a sketch!

I agree with that. As a reader, the input is just too limited to understand the dreams and wishes. Therefore, one stays close to the original design.
If it were mine, I would always start with a completely blank sheet from the beginning and boldly ask whether symmetry in the gable is really that important. An offset might appear much more individual and cozy.

K a t j a schrieb:

I agree with that. As a reader, the input is simply too limited to understand the dreams and wishes. That’s why one tends to stick close to the original design.

On one hand, I appreciate that from you, and many original posters value it as well. Unfortunately, many then settle for this conciliatory interpretation, thinking their initial draft couldn’t have been that bad after all, and they’re happy to have a better basis for further development — however, the seeds of a false start remain embedded in the DNA of the fundamentally unsuitable design.

K a t j a schrieb:

If it were mine, I would always start fresh with a completely blank sheet and boldly ask whether symmetry is really that important to the homeowner? An offset might appear much more unique and cozy.

Starting with a clean petri dish without any contamination is certainly the wiser approach. No leftover elements are allowed in the container — not a single cube. Having a perfect result again should be on the wish list. Symmetry is not just an aesthetic preference for those with difficulty appreciating proportions; it also comes at a cost, as it typically only works from about twelve meters (39 feet) of house width onward.

---

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