ᐅ Site and floor plan design with access from the southeast

Hello dear forum members,

Now we would like to ask for your help!
We have reached the point where we have decided on a builder specializing in timber prefabricated houses (a small family business, ecological timber panel construction with breathable, diffusion-open wall assembly) and are just waiting for the loan approval, which should happen soon.

Architectural services are included in our house price, and we have already received initial drafts and some revisions based on our wishes. However, we are somewhat dissatisfied and hope you might have some great ideas or can spark new thoughts.

Here are the facts:

Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 651 sqm (7009 sq ft)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.25 = 162.5 sqm (1750 sq ft)
Floor area ratio: not specified in development plan (Baden-Württemberg)
Building envelope, building line and boundary: no specifications (Baden-Württemberg); blue dashed line in the image
Edge development: garage
Number of parking spaces: maximum 6 above-ground spaces – we will never need that many 🙂
Number of storeys: 2 full storeys possible, but maximum ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)
Roof type: gable, hip or pyramid roof; roof pitch 20° - 35°
Maximum heights / limits: max. ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)

Homeowner requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: single-family house, city villa, pyramid or hip roof, timber prefabricated house
Basement, storeys: no basement, 2 full storeys
Number of occupants, ages: currently M 32 years, F 27 years, children planned, up to 4 people
Space requirements ground floor / upper floor: about +/- 160 sqm (1720 sq ft), estimated from previous drafts
Office: family use or home office? M works 100% from home, room also serves as guest room
Number of overnight guests per year: about 3-4 times
Open or closed layout: rather open
Conservative or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen with kitchen block
Number of dining seats: at least 6, 8 would be nice
Fireplace desired, currently one of the problems 🙂
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: preference for an attached double garage. So far, the architect hasn’t managed to incorporate this.
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for any preferences:

• Ground floor: open living-dining area, technical room without utility room, additional room as office, guest WC without shower.
• Upper floor: master bedroom, 2 children’s rooms, bathroom with shower and bathtub, utility room for washing machine and dryer
• Lawn / play area for kids later
• A terrace not directly facing the street for privacy

House design
Who designed it: architect of the builder
What do you like most? Why? Open kitchen and dining area, as the central living space in the house. Orientation of master bedroom and bathroom because the window front faces undeveloped land, with no planned expansion of the settlement.

What don’t you like? Why?
-Pantry, because the dining area might become a bit cramped. Also, the fireplace is inside the pantry since the floor space is otherwise too small. The fireplace is a fixed element due to the upper floor; there is very little room to move it.
-Connection from dining room to living room is hard to imagine and should not become a pointless corridor.
-Garage: currently a compromise. The wish is for a garage directly attached with access to the house, for example through the technical room. The architect says that this would make the southwest side too tight – his words. If it is possible after all, what about the entrance area?

Price estimate according to architect/planner: turnkey house without earthworks and kitchen 480K, already with selected materials.
Personal price limit for house including fittings: 500K
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump

What details or features could you give up?
-Can give up: connection from living room to hallway is nice to have
-Cannot give up: pantry itself

Why is the design like it is now? For example:
Standard draft from planner? That was the starting point, but we have moved quite far away from it.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? Large kitchen and lots of light in kitchen and dining area, living room was somewhat enlarged.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad? It feels like everything the architect has done is just what we asked for. No own ideas have been introduced. We are still waiting for a “Hey – this could be done better” moment.

I would appreciate any small ideas or criticism!
Wishing you all a nice Sunday!

What exactly are the things that are currently making you unhappy? I also don’t know if you would be willing to start the planning process over again if necessary. Not that it’s always required, but from experience, you can’t just move one corner without something else falling on the other side.

Additionally, you apparently have some must-haves that bring problems elsewhere.

First of all, I want to mention the so-called “town villa,” which is really just called a villa but isn’t one, yet the attractive name seems to be popular. This type of design often causes issues that would be less common in a simple rectangular shape.

Then there’s the fireplace, which I personally find problematic, especially in combination with underfloor heating. This feature complicates the pantry and, more importantly, the passage between the living room and the dining room. I think a fireplace also needs a suitable, visually effective space, as it’s usually enjoyed by looking at it from the living room or elsewhere while it gently flickers. We really enjoy that, but only without underfloor heating and in a dedicated, well-designed spot. Trying to have too much leads to mediocrity, which seems to be the case here, and maybe some things should just be reconsidered, starting with the garage issue.

Personally, I would never have a garage because I would rather invest the extra costs of a garage vs. a carport into the house itself (such as controlled ventilation, climate control, stairs, lighting, etc.) instead of covering a car. The forced direct connection of the garage to the living space probably comes from many American films, but that is one of the last things I would want to plan so prominently.

The children’s rooms are very large, which has been discussed several times here, and the bathroom upstairs is also quite big and has too much empty space without improving its appeal.

On the ground floor, I would definitely include a shower, as guests will want/need to shower, and with four people, I see a medium-term need for that.

That’s it for now.

I generally like the design, with a few reservations.

• I'm not a big fan of pantries, but in your case, it is located centrally on the ground floor, which in my view disrupts the entrance area. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be looking at the front door from the living room, but that might just be my preference. Consider planning without a pantry or placing it in a different location.
• I would also consider dividing the cloakroom into two separate areas.
• What is the reason for the hip roof? A gable roof would be more cost-effective for your building shape, provide more attic space, and allow for better solar panel efficiency (which you will likely need in Baden-Württemberg anyway).
• Garage/carport: I have a different opinion than @Arauki, but he is partly right: Think about the purpose you want it to serve. With two children and two cars that need to be used for commuting, I do see the sense in it. The cost difference compared to a carport should be around 20,000 euros.
• I agree on having a shower on the ground floor with two children.

If the plot is indeed flat, you might want to reconsider the house position and place the garden in the northwest with a small south-facing terrace. This way, you won’t have a long walk to the house, and you benefit from natural privacy and sun protection in summer. If my plot allowed it, that would also be my choice.

roteweste schrieb:

If the plot is actually flat, you might want to reconsider the house placement and position the garden in the northwest with a small south-facing terrace.

Take a look at the blue dashed lines in the initial post. This should indicate the area where the house is allowed to be built.

That’s why I think the architect’s idea with the carport and the adjoining shed is quite good. It already creates an area that receives evening sun from the west but is protected from the street.
The main entrance to the house is quite hidden, though.

I would also consider a relatively shallow pitched roof.

I also think the floor plan is good, but the pantry would be more practical if it were 1m (3 feet) deeper. As it is, it's barely a walk-in closet. Plus, the path from the entrance to the living room is oddly zigzagged. It feels quite convoluted.

Arauki11 schrieb:

This building design often comes with issues that are less common in, for example, a rectangular shape.

The base here .is. a rectangle.
And the floor plan itself has few negative features compared to a conventional detached villa.

Häuslebauer26 schrieb:

The architect sees no other option because otherwise the southwest side would become too tight – his words. If it does work, what do we do with the entrance area?

What exactly is supposed to work there?
Aside from the fact that I don’t support duplicating hallway space through a large entrance, you will probably also recognize the difficulties involved in fulfilling such a request?! You want this, that, and the other, but you forget that the plot is limited, a house—at least a city villa—usually only has four exterior walls, and that the living areas should definitely be given more attention than a place to store vehicles that get replaced every few years.
In that sense, I find the architect’s prioritization quite understandable.

Häuslebauer26 schrieb:

Architectural services are included in our house price.

While reading, I initially had a somewhat negative impression, but I have to say:

Häuslebauer26 schrieb:

We are somewhat unhappy, though.

I don’t see a reason here to be unhappy with the architect or the planning.

The design is not perfect, but it’s not just a "square, practical, good or bad" solution where no effort was made.
I find it quite good aside from two or three minor issues that can be easily improved.

However, I see the biggest problem in the pantry and the choice of house style.

Häuslebauer26 schrieb:

What don’t you like? Why?
– Pantry, because the dining area might become a bit cramped.

Häuslebauer26 schrieb:

Shouldn’t become a useless corridor.

Exactly, a useless corridor has formed, which causes the fireplace to have a rather bleak existence. A hallway separating the living room from the dining area, a pantry that provides storage space for the kitchen but for what purpose?

Minor things like the toilet being inside the wet room of the shower, etc.
There is no additional storage space created by the villa style for, for example, suitcases or decorative items. Do you really want to store these things in the dressing room or the utility room? I would actually opt for a knee wall height of 180cm (70 inches) or something similar and create storage space under the roof along the roof slope/gable roof.
I would reduce the pantry, for example with a narrow extension of the secondary work area under the stairs that acts as a separation but not as a blockage. In the kitchen, three tall cabinets should be enough to enlarge the workspace because I find the current countertop space insufficient. The corners only serve as storage areas, and then there is only the island left. The rest hopefully follows naturally from that.