ᐅ Floor plan of a single-family home designed as an urban villa

xDorix schrieb:
Unfortunately, people who only comment about the budget don’t really help. Of course, the total cost will exceed the planned expenses in the end, but the fact that many things have been and will be paid out of pocket is being completely ignored here.

No, this has not been addressed so far.

But it’s just nonsense to let a thread run for 8 pages when you’re being told from various sides (I do this professionally) that the budget isn’t sufficient.

Honestly, I find it quite rude of you not to address such an important point. If you say that money is not an issue—fine, then continue the discussion. But if $450,000 (what exactly is included in that “house construction” offer you haven’t clarified even when asked) brings the whole family to tears and means no new clothes, vacations, etc., then we could all spend our valuable free time better than chasing unrealistic dreams. After all, YOU want something and WE respond/plan/give advice—free of charge in our free time.

Think about that.

xDorix schrieb:
I’m very grateful to most people for offering many ideas and solutions.

It’s unfortunate that you have a terrible planner (more like just a drafter; a proper plan commissioned for money shouldn’t produce something like this), who delivers a floor plan with so many issues that lots of solutions even become necessary in the first place. Personally, I would discard the design and not try to forcefully improve it. For example, the kids’ bathroom will always be a mess because it’s too narrow and can never be properly designed. It’s really unfortunate to try to fix what can be saved only AFTER signing the contract.

Thanks and goodbye.

xDorix schrieb:
As you can see from the other posts, we make adjustments when reasonable alternatives or improvements are suggested. From you, there are only lists of negative aspects. And these points are often based on personal feelings. I have yet to read from you even one instance of how the negative aspect could be turned into a positive. That does not help.

That is not correct; I had written:

11ant schrieb:
Of course, a redesign is still possible, although then the question is whether the house size or the price must remain the same — contract cancellation for a (substantial) upgrade is usually possible, but presumably the price discussion then starts over.

That a redesign (under inconvenient circumstances, but) is still possible, though already beforehand…

11ant schrieb:
A contingency of ten percent will not suffice where thirty percent is actually needed.

The floor plan and financial planning do not match, and that to a worrying degree. This means that discussing any potential positive aspects simply does not make sense, because after a significant downsizing the floor plan would no longer retain its original character.

Besides, one should not only read my own posts but also my likes on posts by others.

xDorix schrieb:
I can clarify this: that is not a washbasin but the fireplace.

Logically, I also assumed that would be a fireplace at that location. But secondly, your “legend” on the same drawing states "* = washbasin," and first, fireplaces usually have chimneys continuing upward (which would be where the bathroom access would be).

But we (including the colleague who professionally does construction financing) all have no clue (we are new here after all) and are simply unjustifiably jealous and resentful towards you, for which I sincerely apologize ;-)
Chleutert das pöse, pöse Internet zu Poten!

Factually, I remain stubborn in my belief that this house will not be possible for 409k without numerous “owner-supplied” items — and the lack of knowledge of your general contractor alone does not explain this. Although that is true: yes, I do not know a single general contractor working with pro bono staff and subcontractors. Shame on me ;-)
But you are far from the biggest offender here: that distinction belongs to someone who tears the head off a 340 sqm (3650 sq ft) house, puts on a new one, and cannot understand why that should not be cheaper than building new.

---

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

xDorix schrieb:
I have yet to read even one instance from you on how to turn a negative aspect into a positive. That doesn't help at all.

By the way, that is completely untrue – not only here, but also in the twin thread, I have given you plenty of helpful advice (including pointing out the issue with an unrealistic budget). But if you want only non-financial tips:

I have
1. pointed out that the recess of the façade edge on the upper floor is stronger by 2 cm (about 1 inch) than on the ground floor, especially affecting the outer wall cladding,
3. advised you that your general contractor should show you how they usually handle this detail,
1. already mentioned that shifting the exterior wall on the upper floor outward by about an octameter (0.8 m / 2.6 feet) could be an option,
2. given my mantra advice that arbitrary measurements should be avoided because they inevitably cause irregularities in the brick pattern, leading to patchy workmanship,
4. pointed out the problem that the generous roof overhang has a functional impact on spacing,
5. told you where to find positive examples for the practical implementation of the detail “covered children’s bathroom projection over entrance,”
and
a) mentioned that a new design with 130 sqm (1400 sq ft) would fit the budget, or
b) that 150 sqm (1600 sq ft) would not overstretch the budget much more and would provide no less living value than your current design of about 190 sqm (2045 sq ft), and
c) that numerous suitable “catalog” designs are available on the market and work better than Frankenstein-style patchworks of various inspiration plans.

I have also praised the size of the children’s rooms and the choice of staircase design – so it’s not true that I only complain without offering anything else. I even advised that by avoiding overestimated symmetry, you can save money and achieve a better look with a more modest size. I can only write all this – it’s up to you to read, understand, and accept it.

11ant schrieb:
The upper floor is recessed all around because only on the ground floor is an outer masonry shell installed, yet on the upper floor despite the “ETICS” (External Thermal Insulation Composite System) there remains a reduced wall thickness of 13.5 cm (5 inches). Any apprentice draftsman in their first year would immediately come up with the idea (or at least that’s what they would have done in my time) to shift the structural masonry shell on the upper floor about an octameter (0.8 m / 2.6 feet) further outwards. But here, anyway, there are fantasy measurements as far as the eye can see (remember: fantasy measurements are the foundation of patchwork errors!).

11ant schrieb:
Well then, there’s probably no point analyzing the design in detail when it already massively exceeds the budget: the twin post mentions a budget of 450k, but the real figure will be around 600k. However, a normal family doesn’t need more than 190+ sqm (2045+ sq ft) anyway, so there’s plenty of room to cut. With your new draft, also forget about striving for symmetry of the façades – this is just a cheap superficial aesthetic for those who have trouble with proportions. By the way, the ground floor also shows a staircase to the cellar, which on the other hand is mentioned as a luxury (no slope) and so probably dispensable. I only see two successful aspects in this design: the staircase shape and the children’s room size. I wouldn’t carry over anything else into the new planning approach.

Design YOUR house according to your needs (130 to 150 sqm / 1400 to 1600 sq ft – closer to 130 since you want some quirks in the building shape) instead of trying to modify (too large) borrowed floor plans. Even a complete architect’s design (both phases!) costs less than the surfaces planned here.

Or consider proven designs right away, which makes the most sense for typical families (especially with flat lots; for sloping lots, simply look one size smaller). What are the models called from which you copied together the shown design, and which models does your general contractor offer in the catalog at the stated price?

11ant schrieb:
A front overhang significantly larger than those on the sides and rear always looks a bit like a baseball cap. Besides, even 75 cm (30 inches) already has a functional impact on spacing.

11ant schrieb:
But not that much. How is your general contractor solving this detail otherwise?

11ant schrieb:
Examples can be found abundantly in the catalogs of general contractors in the N3 broadcast region – Tönjes & Meichsner, Eco Systemhaus, Team Massiv, Kagebau, and so on.

Always this grumpy 11ant, from whom comes nothing positive or useful!

---

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

11ant schrieb:
A 10% contingency won’t be enough when 30% is needed

A bit off topic, but: do you recommend a 30% contingency for every project, or are you referring specifically to the low price per square meter (sq m) of the quote here? So far, I’ve only ever heard of contingencies around 5-10% of the budget...

Noxmortana schrieb:
A bit off topic, but: do you recommend a 30% contingency for every project, or are you referring to the low price per square meter in this offer? So far, I’ve only heard contingency amounts of 5-10% of the budget...

That’s exactly what both our main bank, another regional bank, and two financial service providers have recommended. I don’t think we’re dealing with people who have no clue here. For this reason, our contingency ended up being even higher than those 10%, which, combined with our own funds, makes the reserve even larger.

Noxmortana schrieb:
A bit off topic, but: do you recommend a 30% contingency for every project, or are you referring here to the low price per square meter of the offer? So far, I had only heard of contingency amounts between 5-10% of the budget...

Not off topic at all. The original poster mentioned (I don’t remember on which of the two channels of their two-thread discussion) a house price of 409k according to the general contractor’s offer and a 450k budget including contingency; that’s a 41k buffer (which is about 10% of 409k). The house in question, however, is over 190 sqm (x $3,000/sqm, so about 570k expected true cost), and features like the large roof overhang, the children’s bathroom acting as a “canopy,” etc., still need to be added, so the total should be expected close to 600k.

130% of 409k would be about 532k (570k would be almost 140%), so that would be a closer estimate of reality if the general contractor were really such a price leader.

I never recommend a fixed percentage contingency, but rather to avoid stretching your budget or what you think it could cover out of pure FOMO. Enough is enough; you don’t need more than that (of course, if you can afford more, go ahead, but then be aware that this is a luxury).

The “contingency” I always recommend is simply “the difference between $3,000/sqm and the price per square meter the general contractor claims to offer.” Experience shows that this “buffer,” as the name suggests, mostly disappears completely—and if by rare chance it doesn’t: so what. If you end up with money left over after the build, better treat yourself to a nice holiday (if it’s that much—usually it won’t be more than a pizza dinner with family and friends) than lament, “If we’d known beforehand that it would be cheaper than expected, we would have built a much bigger house.”

---

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