ᐅ Passive house floor plan feedback: ground floor and upper floor, open kitchen, cloakroom, and family rooms discussion

Hello everyone,

Today, I would like to open the discussion about our floor plan and ask for your comments and suggestions for improvement ... THANK YOU ;-)

Here are a few basic explanations:

• The house is intended to be as energy-efficient as possible (towards passive house standard). Therefore, it is rectangular with a 45° pitched roof ... no projections, bay windows, dormers, etc.
• At the top is north and the street
• Top right is the garage, next to it on the left a wall/privacy screen, and further left the driveway
• The background image still shows the old, demolished house ... don’t be confused ;-)

# Ground Floor:

• You drive forward onto the property ... then into the garage. When leaving, you reverse out of the garage, turn left in reverse, and then can drive forward back onto the street.
• In front of the garage, you enter directly through a door into the utility/technical room (the only room without natural light)
• From there into the cloakroom
• From the front door, you take 1 or 2 steps past the guest toilet also into the spacious cloakroom
=> I had initially planned to place the cloakroom on the exterior wall, but then the guest toilet would have no natural light, which my wife did not want.
• Opposite the guest toilet is the staircase going up; under the stairs is an office/guest room
• Straight ahead leads to the open kitchen/dining/living area
• The terrace on the right has shade in midsummer ... there is a door from the kitchen directly out there
• Another door to the "south terrace" is at the bottom center

# Upper Floor:

• Basically self-explanatory ... children’s rooms with children’s bathroom, master bathroom, walk-in closet, master bedroom

Where do you see potential for optimization?

Thank you in advance for your ideas!
Uwe

Considering the house costs a million, it’s better to let a professional handle it. The structural engineering will be quite challenging for an 81m² (870 sq ft) room. Otherwise, I see huge rooms without much purpose, and the dimensions are completely missing. I would discard this design and have a professional plan it.

There is a standard questionnaire here that should be completed to gather the necessary information.
The plan or floor layout itself must include accurate, true measurements for rooms, doors, etc., as well as furniture, in order to provide serious feedback.
To me, this is not a proper plan but rather a failed attempt at Tetris, because a real plan reflects an actual design based on specific needs, budget, and also terrain, lot, and more. None of that is visible here.
For a project like this, including insulation standards and so on, I recommend consulting a suitable company or a qualified architect, or for initial inspiration possibly one of the many floor plans available online.
Your current self-made draft is not suitable for further discussion; please start with the questionnaire first.

I agree with the previous commenters and would like to add that the boundary construction already looks like it exceeds 9 meters (30 feet).
And by questionnaire, the following is meant ==> https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-planung-unbedingt-vor-beitrag-erstellung-lesen.11714/

According to the displayed square meter (sqm) figures, that is over 250 square meters (2690 square feet) for questionable rooms 😉

I spent quite some time staring at the wall, wondering how to respond—especially since there were already several justified critical comments.

Then the idea came to me: It’s important to understand why those comments are critical, so the next plan can be improved.

Therefore, here are a few deal-breakers in the design that have led to the negative feedback:

1. Most likely, the utility room will neither function properly nor be permitted.
Reasons:
- Supply lines would be built over, which is prohibited in many municipalities (and where it’s not prohibited, it should still be avoided).
- Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is ruled out from the start for this utility room.
- Most types of heating systems are also excluded; the only exceptions are geothermal, district heating, or a split air-to-water heat pump with extended piping to the outside. With all due respect to passive houses, some heating technology is still needed—even if only for hot water.

(Note: The garage also appears too large to be built as a boundary structure.)

2. Several rooms seem significantly oversized. This raises two main questions, all revolving around “is this even buildable?”
- Structural engineering: The open-plan space is huge. For structural reasons, building this would likely come with substantial extra costs. Columns or other structural supports would probably be necessary to safely carry the weight of the upper floor.
- Finances: Including additional construction-related costs, this would effectively be a multi-million project. Are the necessary funds available for this?

3. Some rooms wouldn’t lose any functionality if reduced in size: the open-plan area, children’s rooms, the bedroom and dressing room, and the bathrooms. Since no room dimensions are indicated, I would assume the entire room layout could fit into a building 2–3 meters (6.5–10 feet) less deep.

4. Some corners also don’t look very pleasing. The double door to the master bathroom upstairs. The entrance area, where the actual wardrobe is located just around the corner, meaning that when going to the toilet on the ground floor, you always have to pass through a dirty zone (and in the worst case, could hit the door with your head). I’m also unsure if the staircase fits and works as planned.

I would recommend taking a moment to reflect and first answer this question: How much house can (or do I want to) afford? Planning can then be adjusted accordingly—either smaller (if the project is too expensive) or, if the footprint should/needs to remain, designed to be more attractive and functional inside.

Uwe-gss11 schrieb:

Where do you see potential for improvement?

Everywhere:

Uwe-gss11 schrieb:

It should be a highly energy-efficient house (towards passive house standard). Therefore rectangular with a 45° pitched roof ... no recesses, bay windows, dormers, etc.

Energy savings come only to a small extent from avoiding a complex building shape, and mostly from avoiding oversized rooms: the volume of air to be heated is a crucial factor. A 45° roof pitch is not optimal for solar energy utilization.

Are you multimillionaires, or is it simply a case of “biting off more than you can chew”? Usually, non-professionals plan about 20% too large without realizing it, but your average is around fifty percent. Moreover, I see no initial reason (not least because of the missing questionnaire) for a custom design.

---

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