Hello everyone,
We have an open space of about 4.6m x 12m (15 ft x 39 ft) that combines the kitchen, dining room, and living room. Currently, a rough ceiling height of 2.77m (9 ft 1 in) is planned, and with a 15cm (6 inches) floor construction, the finished height will be around 2.62m (8 ft 7 in).
I have planned the lighting with recessed spotlights as well as openings for the mechanical ventilation system. The structural engineer mentioned that for the manufacturer of the precast ceiling, 180mm (7 inches) Halox conduit is always used, and each electrical box costs 100€ net.
Now I am considering three options:
- Have the spotlights fully installed and hope everything fits as planned. Then have the ceiling plastered.
- Lower the ceiling slightly, I estimate by about 7-8cm (3 inches). This would sacrifice some height but provide all the benefits of a suspended ceiling. A recessed shadow gap would also be possible, which I really like. Then the ceiling would be skimmed, sanded, and painted.
- Raise the ceiling by half a brick (~12.5cm / 5 inches). This would be allowed according to the building permit/planning permission and still fit with one stair step. This would result in lowering the ceiling by about 10-15cm (4-6 inches). Then skim, sand, and paint.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how these different ceiling heights would feel. How would you approach this and what would be the recommended height for lowering the ceiling? Would you prefer to use metal profiles or wood for the suspended ceiling?
We have an open space of about 4.6m x 12m (15 ft x 39 ft) that combines the kitchen, dining room, and living room. Currently, a rough ceiling height of 2.77m (9 ft 1 in) is planned, and with a 15cm (6 inches) floor construction, the finished height will be around 2.62m (8 ft 7 in).
I have planned the lighting with recessed spotlights as well as openings for the mechanical ventilation system. The structural engineer mentioned that for the manufacturer of the precast ceiling, 180mm (7 inches) Halox conduit is always used, and each electrical box costs 100€ net.
Now I am considering three options:
- Have the spotlights fully installed and hope everything fits as planned. Then have the ceiling plastered.
- Lower the ceiling slightly, I estimate by about 7-8cm (3 inches). This would sacrifice some height but provide all the benefits of a suspended ceiling. A recessed shadow gap would also be possible, which I really like. Then the ceiling would be skimmed, sanded, and painted.
- Raise the ceiling by half a brick (~12.5cm / 5 inches). This would be allowed according to the building permit/planning permission and still fit with one stair step. This would result in lowering the ceiling by about 10-15cm (4-6 inches). Then skim, sand, and paint.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how these different ceiling heights would feel. How would you approach this and what would be the recommended height for lowering the ceiling? Would you prefer to use metal profiles or wood for the suspended ceiling?
H
hanghaus20238 Sep 2025 13:15I also had 5 recessed spotlights in a suspended ceiling in the bathroom. After 20 years, I removed all of it and installed a proper LED ceiling light. It’s much brighter and provides better light. Power consumption was reduced from 150 W to 12 W. Still much brighter.
GeraldG schrieb:
In the kitchen, I would install spotlights to brightly illuminate the countertop. Won’t the planned kitchen lighting, for example under the wall cabinets, be sufficient? Using spotlights there would be unnecessary duplication.
GeraldG schrieb:
This is purely the ceiling plan. The spotlights near the wall are meant to illuminate only the wall. They have a relatively narrow beam angle to create this arch pattern. So you care about the arches that the light casts on the wall? That’s definitely a matter of personal taste and hard to argue against.
GeraldG schrieb:
Here you can already see part of the problem. Unfortunately, what you actually don’t see is the real issue: light coming from above is generally bad lighting in residential settings because it casts unflattering shadows on people. In lighting theory—whether professionally or just practically in everyday life—overhead lighting is the worst choice since it creates harsh shadows on faces from the forehead and nose, which is best avoided if you want people to look their best. This applies to both dining and living areas, even when the light is dimmed, which you describe as indirect lighting.
GeraldG schrieb:
It’s mainly meant to be indirect lighting. Indirect lighting is usually referred to as accent or decorative lighting. Light sources placed at eye level are much better suited for this purpose.
To me, the simulation appears quite busy. I also don’t see any reason to highlight a corner like that. Furthermore, the staircase is far too brightly lit.
It may be that this lighting simulation suffers from the same issues as many poor self-made floor plans, where the designer—being an amateur—just convinces themselves it looks good. But it might also be that you really support this and like it. In that case, I would suggest suspending the fixtures, as that would provide more flexibility.
ypg schrieb:
Wouldn't the planned kitchen lighting, for example under the wall cabinets, be sufficient? Using spotlights there duplicates the lighting unnecessarily. In the "plan," I marked with color whether the spots are installed in the concrete ceiling or, for example, in a wall cabinet.
ypg schrieb:
Also, the staircase is way too bright. They are, of course, dimmable, and I just wanted to experiment with how often to illuminate every step. I did that at the very beginning and haven’t changed it since.
ypg schrieb:
It might be that this lighting simulation behaves like many poor self-made floor plans, where the drafter, meaning a layperson, just convinces themselves everything looks good. It didn’t just magically appear fully formed and become unchangeable. I examined how different beam angles behave and chose what I liked. I actually find this kind of lighting suitable as "ambient lighting," which is why it’s planned this way:
Not in the entrance area, there I wanted a rather cozy lighting, so I placed panels with wide beam angles.
Instead of those wall-mounted spots, an up-down light fixture on the wall is also possible; however, I found (and still find) it difficult to get good-looking ones at reasonable prices that allow adjustment of both brightness and color temperature. If someone wants to sketch something in Paint, I can add it to the simulation, and of course, if it improves the result, I’m happy to do it that way.
N
nordanney8 Sep 2025 14:41GeraldG schrieb:
Instead of these recessed spotlights on the wall, you can of course use an up-down wall light. However, I found (and still find) it difficult to find attractive ones at reasonable prices, We used to have
mounted on the wall. The classic models from Occhio are now available as replicas for about a hundred each (they don’t seem bad at all, judging by the photos).
GeraldG schrieb:
It didn’t just suddenly appear with a “pop” and the simulation was there. Well, some creative people spent weeks on their designs, but already went off track in the first five minutes—off track from the original idea.
I really don’t find the design in the photo contemporary, nor does it inspire me to pursue it further. Anyway.
GeraldG schrieb:
Instead of these wall-mounted spotlights, of course, you could also use up-down lighting on the wall, Those were popular once, until it was realized they limit placement options. I actually have them too, installed in the open living area at about three meters (10 feet) high near the staircase. My small LED cubes still work there, but at wall height around 1.5 meters (5 feet) I can do without them now—or rather, I would choose to do without them now. I built twelve years ago, then it was super mainstream.
ypg schrieb:
Those were used before, until it was realized they limit the placement options.So, to summarize:- no recessed lights
- no wall lights
- LED strips
- ceiling lights
- pendant lights
- floor lamps
Similar topics