ᐅ 160 m² single-family house with timber frame construction on a north-facing slope, including a basement

Created on: 26 Aug 2018 17:03
L
Lbx
Hello,

below you will find our (almost) final floor plan. Only a few adjustments and changes to the windows are still being made. We would appreciate your feedback.

Development Plan / Restrictions
Construction according to Paragraph 34 of the Building Code. Neighboring buildings are 1.5 to 2 stories with pitched roofs.

Plot Size
3000m2 (approximately 0.74 acres), building area around 600m2 (0.15 acres) along the street

Slope
Approximately 2m (6.6 feet) diagonal incline where the house will be located, rising from southwest to northeast

Orientation
South (uphill side)

Client Requirements: Style, Roof Type, Building Type
Single-family house, pitched roof (most cost-effective), rather open design

Basement, Floors
Full basement + 2 floors

Number of Occupants, Age
2 adults + 2 children (planned)

Room Requirements on Ground Floor and Upper Floor
Open kitchen + dining area + living room, pantry, study, guest WC, parents’ area (bedroom, walk-in closet, bathroom), children’s area (2 bedrooms + bathroom), garage, utility room, storage room

Office: Family use or home office?
Family use + emergency children’s bedroom

Overnight Guests per Year
1-2

Open or Closed Architecture
Rather open

Conservative or Modern Building Style
Rather modern

Open Kitchen, Kitchen Island
Open kitchen, island not necessary

Number of Dining Seats
6

Fireplace
No

Music / Stereo Wall
5.1 surround, approx. 3 meters (10 feet) for TV, etc.

Balcony, Roof Terrace
No

Garage, Carport
In the basement

House Design
Who Created the Plan:

Floor plan from a construction company, modified according to our wishes by the planner of a prefab house company (structural engineer)

What Do You Like Especially? Why?

- Separate parents’ area

- Open design with living room accessible from two sides

- Staircase on the north side, where the street is

- Garage inside the house

- Large windows facing south

- Living room + kitchen + dining areas facing south

- Open ridge ceiling on the upper floor

What Do You Dislike? Why?

- Low, small windows on the upper floor due to the 1.8m (5.9 feet) knee wall height – we will probably raise this to 2.10m (6.9 feet)

- Boring exterior appearance

- Small study room, but currently the best compromise for us

- Kitchen windows not floor-to-ceiling, will be changed

- Possibly too few windows

Cost Estimate from Architect / Planner:

Approximately 400,000 Euro turnkey, including photovoltaic system and natural fiber insulation (ecological) fixed-price offer including basement, electric garage door, etc.

Laminate flooring

External roller blinds in living/kitchen/dining areas

No controlled mechanical ventilation.

No waterproof concrete basement (no “white tank” system).

Personal Price Limit for the House, Including Equipment:
House including all ancillary costs 470,000 Euro

Preferred Heating Technology:
Air-to-water heat pump + photovoltaic system

If You Had to Cut Back, Which Details / Extensions Could You Forgo:
Basement, but due to the slope it does not make much economic sense. Otherwise, we have already cut back as much as we can imagine.

Why Does the Design Look Like It Does Now?
We liked the design from the start, especially the south orientation of all main rooms suits the plot very well.

What Is the Most Important / Basic Question About the Floor Plan in 130 Characters or Less?
1. From what knee wall height do windows including rolling shutters below the knee wall really make sense? At 1.8m (5.9 feet) knee wall, windows would be at hip height, which is not a solution for us. For example, in the children’s room, a desk should fit underneath.

2. According to the soil report, we have about 1m (3.3 feet) of soil class 4 and below that soil class 5-6. What costs could be expected for earthworks on a sloped site?

3. Do you think a mechanical ventilation system is essential in a timber frame house? According to two reputable prefab house providers, it is mostly unnecessary and mainly important only for allergy sufferers.

A small note on the attached files: in the Google Maps image, south is at the top and the plot is where the two yellow markers are. In the views, I sketched around a bit unfortunately.

Topographic site plan of a plot with terrain contours and survey lines


Aerial view of a residential area with plots, trees and streets, markers visible


Floor plan of a house with garage, car, utility room, basement and entrance.


Upper floor plan with bedroom, walk-in closet, 2 bathrooms, hallway, 2 children’s rooms


Floor plan of a house: hallway, study, pantry, kitchen, dining, living room.


Modern white single-family home with garage on lower floor, many windows and green slope.


Modern white house with dark pitched roof, large glass fronts and wooden terrace.
K
kbt09
3 Sep 2018 21:07
This knee wall is effective when positioned to allow room use; the usable living space becomes smaller, but the exterior building area to be constructed remains unchanged.
L
Lbx
3 Sep 2018 23:00
kbt09 schrieb:
I’ve already shared my opinion about the children’s rooms in the basement.

The house won’t get any smaller, though; the exterior dimensions are still the same as far as I can tell.
Instead of over 1.8 m (6 feet) knee wall height in the attic, it’s about 50 cm (20 inches) now. That should bring a considerable saving and also means less living space.
K
kbt09
3 Sep 2018 23:06
Your exterior dimensions are identical to the initial design, apart from the small knee wall area. What actual change should there be due to that bit of unusable space in the attic? A carport has been added. Soil excavation remains the same, landscaping remains unchanged, and the roof area is likely slightly larger because it is steeper, which means a bit more gable height will need to be built.

Let’s get an architect involved who knows how to calculate these things.
11ant4 Sep 2018 01:45
Lbx schrieb:
Instead of over 1.8 m (6 feet) knee wall height in the attic, it’s about 50 cm (20 inches). That should save a significant amount and also results in less living space.

I’m afraid I understand: the root of the naive idea is "higher knee wall equals higher additional cost, lower knee wall equals less additional cost" (?)
No, that does not save money because the less usable space then needs to be compensated elsewhere. Avoiding a full story, however, it does for sure.

But the knee wall is not only supposed to provide standing height for vacuuming. It also creates space for beds and dressers. And it does not do that at this height. A very low knee wall is worse than none at all—simply because it forces the pointless combination of “knee wall and eaves.” Even fools only do that in their first year of learning.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
Kekse
4 Sep 2018 06:59
And it doesn’t really save a significant amount. During the planning phase, we transformed our barely single-story house into a genuine two-story building (completely without sloped ceilings), which cost about 12,000 (gross!). Of course, that is a lot of money, but it’s not a deal breaker. If we wanted to, we could still save on this during the final selection phase.
kaho6744 Sep 2018 07:16
I actually think the basic idea isn’t bad at all. However, trying to save money with this approach is rather nonsense. You need to reduce the floor area. Can you remove this bedroom on the ground floor? Get rid of the wardrobe, make the toilet smaller, relocate the pantry, compress everything together, and the entrance area will disappear anyway. Then it will start to work.