ᐅ Floor Plan Design for a Single-Family Home – Starting from Scratch?

Hello everyone,

Last year, we purchased a plot of land in Bavaria where we would like to build a single-family house.
Since the city classified the land as an outside development area, we had to apply for a preliminary building permit (building permit / planning permission), which was ultimately approved.
The architect who supported us through this process was basically willing to continue working with us. However, due to his location, age, and our relatively “standard” requirements, he advised us to first consider whether a standard design from a construction company might suit us.
We then spoke with several local construction companies and obtained offers from three of them (all standard designs or only slightly modified).
Company A was somewhat pushy in their communication and was therefore rejected by us (even though they were the cheapest on paper).
For Company B, we had the construction contract reviewed by a specialist attorney who identified several pitfalls. The company was unwilling to make any adjustments, so we dismissed them as well.
Company C was our overall favorite; however, it became clear fairly late in the process that they act as a construction supervisor rather than a general contractor (GC) / main contractor (we had never heard of this model before and therefore did not actively inquire). After weighing the pros and cons of this concept with our lawyer, we concluded that we would prefer to stick with the GC model (only one point of contact, clear warranties, etc.).

So now we find ourselves somewhat back at the beginning (although with much more knowledge and clearer ideas) and wonder what the next steps should be. Should we contact more construction companies? Or return to an architect for an original design or individual planning?

As a basis for discussion, I am attaching the standard design from Company C. We had planned to extend the original 9 x 11 m (30 x 36 ft) floor plan by 50 cm (20 inches) on the entrance side (to fully utilize the building envelope of 9 x 11.5 m / 30 x 38 ft) and allocate the additional space to an office, guest toilet, bathroom, and second child’s room.
The living area would thus increase from approximately 153 to 158 m2 (1,645 to 1,700 sq ft). The entrance was planned on the north side, with the garage and parking space on the west side. Unfortunately, we only have the design without dimensions.

P.S.: The preliminary building permit initially included a double garage/carport because the previous parking regulation required individually accessible parking spaces. Fortunately, this regulation has since changed so that the two required parking spaces may now be arranged in tandem, which should hopefully simplify the planning and construction.

Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 416 m2 (4,478 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor area ratio (FAR): 0.6
Site coverage ratio (no zoning plan, according to neighboring development)
Building envelope, building line, and boundaries: see preliminary building permit
Edge development: no (only garage)
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of storeys: 2
Roof type: pitched roof
Architectural style: –
Orientation: see preliminary building permit
Maximum heights / restrictions: see preliminary building permit
Other requirements: –

Owner Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: single-family house with pitched roof, solid construction
Basement, storeys: 2 full storeys plus basement
Number of occupants and ages: 2 adults (36 & 34 years old), 1 child (2 years old), 1 more child on the way
Room requirements for ground and upper floors: 2 children’s rooms, master bedroom, 1 office, guest toilet (preferably with shower)
Office: both regularly work from home (2-3 days per week), but only one day together. One desk is currently sufficient (wife mainly phone calls, husband uses two monitors)
Overnight guests per year: currently irregular as there is only one sleeping spot on the couch; having 2 guest beds would be great
Open or closed architecture: rather open (at least for the living/dining area)
Conservative or modern construction: rather modern
Open kitchen, island: rather open
Number of dining seats: at least 6
Fireplace: no
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: prefabricated garage planned with 1 parking space, 2nd parking space in front
Utility garden, greenhouse: possibly a small vegetable garden and garden shed, but nothing unusual
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine:
- No special wishes (due to hobbies etc.)
- Typically, everyone gets up around the same time, then breakfast, one takes the child to daycare, then either office or home office work
- On weekends, often meet with family/friends (barbecues etc.)

House Design
Designer: standard design from a local construction company
What do you particularly like and why?
- Large children’s rooms
- Orientation of rooms toward the nicer sides of the property (south/east)
- Plenty of space in the entrance area
- Dimensions fit well in the building envelope
What do you dislike and why?
- Is the bathroom large enough for 4 people?
- Does the kitchen layout work?
Price estimate by architect/planner: 573k (offer from Company C, turnkey including garage, excluding additional construction costs/kitchen/outdoor facilities)
- We currently estimate additional construction costs at 70-75k
- We are still unsure whether to include photovoltaics right away (estimated approx. 20k)
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 800k (may not fully cover outdoor facilities)
Preferred heating technology: heat pump

If you had to give up something, what details/extensions could you do without?
- Could do without: walk-in closet
- Could not do without:

Why was the design created as it is now? Standard design from the construction company that aligned well with our ideas

tbhr27 schrieb:
Company A was overall a bit too pushy in communication and therefore didn’t make the cut for us (even though they were the cheapest on paper).
For Company B, we had the construction contract reviewed by a specialist lawyer who identified several pitfalls. The company was not willing to make any adjustments, so they were out as well.
Company C was our overall favorite, but it turned out relatively late that they acted as construction supervisors rather than as a general contractor (GC)/main contractor (we had never heard of this model before and therefore didn’t inquire about it). After weighing the pros and cons of this concept with our lawyer, we decided that we preferred to stick with the GC/main contractor model (single point of contact, clear warranty, etc.).

The questions remain as to what exactly was meant by “pushy.” Can that really be a reason not to build with them? After all, you hardly deal with the salesperson or managing director once construction starts.
The fact that contracts are usually thoroughly checked by lawyers is why most GCs don’t change the contract. Are those “pitfalls” really that serious? It’s logical that they draft the contract in their favor and don’t disadvantage themselves.
The third option connects you with the subcontractors?
One thing is certain: there will always be something if you scrutinize with a magnifying glass and critical eye, or if something simply feels off. It’s a matter of deciding whether those minor issues are enough to stop you from moving forward.
As for the designs: there are others who can do that better.

With Company A, we generally felt that we were not well supported (also in comparison to B and C). It might have simply been due to the sales representative we dealt with, but I cannot assess that.

With Company B, the contract was quite the opposite of “spotless” – our lawyer pointed out several clauses in their construction contract that he considered unlawful. Initially, we thought we would sit down with them and adjust the questionable points so that both parties could accept the outcome. However, since the company categorically refused this, we ended negotiations at that point. From our lawyer’s perspective, their contract was not the work of professional attorneys (as is probably the case with major builders) but rather a contract shaped by several (sometimes inconsistent) revisions made by “laypersons.” This was not a case of “tough but fair” but completely unacceptable to us.

Company C would have concluded the contracts with the tradespeople on our behalf (but without a formal tender process, instead working with their fixed partners). Any warranty claims would also have to be directed at the individual trades. In our research, we found relatively little information about this type of construction management concept, but it does not seem to be uncommon in this region.

What did the architect's design look like? Or was it only about the location on the plot?

Not feeling confident is definitely a valid reason to change providers. It was the same for us, and it turned out to be the right decision. There are many providers available. Likewise, there are small companies without traditional sales representatives. In our case, the "salesperson"/"consultant" was our main contact until the very end.

I cannot understand the architect’s idea of moving the house 1 meter (3 feet) forward. The 5 meters (16 feet) would have been enough space for a parking spot, even without a double garage. That way, you wouldn’t have to park cars one behind the other. Who wants that anyway?