So, the corona lockdown and the final phase of my career have some positive sides:
I have two small gem plots of land that are finally going to be built on (one for ourselves, one for our oldest son – here is the first one). We have negotiated the plot for a long time, also with an architect (hmm), and as someone who is slightly indecisive, I’m losing clear overview with all the alternatives: which basic form fits best for the plot and for us?
As a first step, it would be great to get some help from you. Then next would be our detailed planning.
Plot size: 500m2 (5382 sq ft), southwest facing, 19.5m (64 ft) (street side) x 25.5m (84 ft); Berlin, very good location.
Very green inner area to the west, undevelopable. Quiet street.
Two challenges:
Front garden with 7.5 meters (25 ft) is very large,
Huge spruce tree around 25-30m (82-98 ft) high almost directly on the western plot boundary at the neighbor’s in the northwest corner.
Slope: no
Plot ratio (site coverage ratio): 0.25
Floor area ratio (FAR): none, max 2 floors plus roof
Building envelope, building line and boundary: keep 7.5m (25 ft) clear to the street, no parking place there; 3m (10 ft) setback to the three neighbors
Number of parking spaces
Number of storeys: max 2 storeys plus roof
Roof shape: planning office considers flat roofs undesirable, but in the surroundings such a roof has been approved.
Other requirements: “fit in” with the neighborhood
Clients’ requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: modern, but above all coherent and of high quality.
Basement, floors: basement technically difficult due to access and plot size; in the area, all houses have basements, mostly about 1 meter (3 ft) above ground. From our point of view, given the small plot, basement is inappropriate because of stairs leading to the small garden.
Two floors plus roof.
Number of occupants, ages: 3: father/mother/child, 60/51/12 years, father works from home.
Space requirements ground floor (GF), upper floor (UF): UF 3 rooms, a separate office room GF/UF conceivable but not mandatory. Steam sauna.
Office: family use or home office? Father’s home office.
Guest overnight stays per year: rare, child often.
Open or closed architecture: rather open, but more west and east as a unit, rather than east and kitchen (at the dining table homework, games, reading newspaper, etc.).
Conservative or modern construction: modern.
Open kitchen, cooking island: if it fits, but the dining table is actually the family center, even without eating, so a direct view of frying pans is not essential.
Number of dining seats: 5
Fireplace: rather yes, but in the last house it was pointless; abroad in France, however, it’s a dream.
Music/stereo wall: father is a music lover.
Balcony, roof terrace: rather yes.
Garage, carport: at least a carport on the right side (pardon: north side).
Utility garden, greenhouse: no.
Further wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be:
Preferably no “chocolate-box house” or “replacement villa.” But if conventional is better, that’s also OK.
Preliminary house plans
I am aware that we will probably need an architect and that the drafters from a construction company may not be enough. So far, we have not found one (who can plan eco-friendly construction).
Origin of the plans:
One from an architect, but with many promises contradicting the zoning plan, like a fitness studio in the basement with floor-level excavations up to the neighbor’s boundary.
- Planner from a construction company
- Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Each has a first “draft” of a GF and UF, knowing that “draft” is a bit exaggerated.
In random order:
Draft 4 (angled): adapts to the sun, the opening of space from small at the entrance to large in the living room, the transitions, the flow of rooms kitchen-dining-living room, possibilities for terrace all around east/living room, great unconventional children’s room with terrace.
Draft 3: always works with L-shape kitchen-dining-living, lots of garden to the west, narrow side to the southeast neighbor.
Draft 2 (corner): partly covered outdoor area, the neat UF, the UF terrace.
Draft 1 (“barn”): the aesthetic exterior, clear structure.
What do you not like? Why?
D4: kitchen too subordinate? Large living area needs subdivision… upstairs attractive but difficult.
D3: no structure of garden/terrace not derived from or shaped by house/plot.
D2: inside GF too fragmented? Kitchen not separated enough from dining area? UF not easy to design because of angle.
D1 barn: small garden to the west.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
We have no fixed price limit; it should be appropriate to the (small) but valuable plot. I expect an all-in cost of about 700,000 euros (approx. 700 K€).
Preferred heating technology: geothermal.
If you have to give up something, which details/expansions could you?
- Can give up: basement,
- Cannot give up: light, 3m (10 ft) ceiling heights on GF, views of nature, ecologically flawless construction (minimized pollutants).
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Which of the basic concepts should we pursue further for THIS plot? Or are there still too many options so we need to decide our favorite first?
Because of teenager: preferably smaller GF/UF and converted roof?
I have two small gem plots of land that are finally going to be built on (one for ourselves, one for our oldest son – here is the first one). We have negotiated the plot for a long time, also with an architect (hmm), and as someone who is slightly indecisive, I’m losing clear overview with all the alternatives: which basic form fits best for the plot and for us?
As a first step, it would be great to get some help from you. Then next would be our detailed planning.
Plot size: 500m2 (5382 sq ft), southwest facing, 19.5m (64 ft) (street side) x 25.5m (84 ft); Berlin, very good location.
Very green inner area to the west, undevelopable. Quiet street.
Two challenges:
Front garden with 7.5 meters (25 ft) is very large,
Huge spruce tree around 25-30m (82-98 ft) high almost directly on the western plot boundary at the neighbor’s in the northwest corner.
Slope: no
Plot ratio (site coverage ratio): 0.25
Floor area ratio (FAR): none, max 2 floors plus roof
Building envelope, building line and boundary: keep 7.5m (25 ft) clear to the street, no parking place there; 3m (10 ft) setback to the three neighbors
Number of parking spaces
Number of storeys: max 2 storeys plus roof
Roof shape: planning office considers flat roofs undesirable, but in the surroundings such a roof has been approved.
Other requirements: “fit in” with the neighborhood
Clients’ requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: modern, but above all coherent and of high quality.
Basement, floors: basement technically difficult due to access and plot size; in the area, all houses have basements, mostly about 1 meter (3 ft) above ground. From our point of view, given the small plot, basement is inappropriate because of stairs leading to the small garden.
Two floors plus roof.
Number of occupants, ages: 3: father/mother/child, 60/51/12 years, father works from home.
Space requirements ground floor (GF), upper floor (UF): UF 3 rooms, a separate office room GF/UF conceivable but not mandatory. Steam sauna.
Office: family use or home office? Father’s home office.
Guest overnight stays per year: rare, child often.
Open or closed architecture: rather open, but more west and east as a unit, rather than east and kitchen (at the dining table homework, games, reading newspaper, etc.).
Conservative or modern construction: modern.
Open kitchen, cooking island: if it fits, but the dining table is actually the family center, even without eating, so a direct view of frying pans is not essential.
Number of dining seats: 5
Fireplace: rather yes, but in the last house it was pointless; abroad in France, however, it’s a dream.
Music/stereo wall: father is a music lover.
Balcony, roof terrace: rather yes.
Garage, carport: at least a carport on the right side (pardon: north side).
Utility garden, greenhouse: no.
Further wishes/particulars/daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be:
Preferably no “chocolate-box house” or “replacement villa.” But if conventional is better, that’s also OK.
Preliminary house plans
I am aware that we will probably need an architect and that the drafters from a construction company may not be enough. So far, we have not found one (who can plan eco-friendly construction).
Origin of the plans:
One from an architect, but with many promises contradicting the zoning plan, like a fitness studio in the basement with floor-level excavations up to the neighbor’s boundary.
- Planner from a construction company
- Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Each has a first “draft” of a GF and UF, knowing that “draft” is a bit exaggerated.
In random order:
Draft 4 (angled): adapts to the sun, the opening of space from small at the entrance to large in the living room, the transitions, the flow of rooms kitchen-dining-living room, possibilities for terrace all around east/living room, great unconventional children’s room with terrace.
Draft 3: always works with L-shape kitchen-dining-living, lots of garden to the west, narrow side to the southeast neighbor.
Draft 2 (corner): partly covered outdoor area, the neat UF, the UF terrace.
Draft 1 (“barn”): the aesthetic exterior, clear structure.
What do you not like? Why?
D4: kitchen too subordinate? Large living area needs subdivision… upstairs attractive but difficult.
D3: no structure of garden/terrace not derived from or shaped by house/plot.
D2: inside GF too fragmented? Kitchen not separated enough from dining area? UF not easy to design because of angle.
D1 barn: small garden to the west.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
We have no fixed price limit; it should be appropriate to the (small) but valuable plot. I expect an all-in cost of about 700,000 euros (approx. 700 K€).
Preferred heating technology: geothermal.
If you have to give up something, which details/expansions could you?
- Can give up: basement,
- Cannot give up: light, 3m (10 ft) ceiling heights on GF, views of nature, ecologically flawless construction (minimized pollutants).
What is the most important/fundamental question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Which of the basic concepts should we pursue further for THIS plot? Or are there still too many options so we need to decide our favorite first?
Because of teenager: preferably smaller GF/UF and converted roof?
11ant schrieb:
what, besides dadaist arbitrariness, is supposed to be behind the boldly angled wall layout So overall: the bold angle can only be attributed to being on drugs.
What surprised me most in terms of content was that someone who so vehemently criticizes the “substitute mansions” doesn’t even make the effort to understand the intention behind an unorthodox alternative when it is presented.
Therefore, I am happy to address the supposed “dadaist arbitrariness of the boldly angled wall layout,” and I had offered to explain the background via private message.
The architect who contributed to this design had THREE considerations in mind with this boldness:
1. The wall, angled by about 30 degrees, allows sunlight to enter the dining room TWO hours earlier than with a right angle.
2. The line of sight from the dining room to the living room is significantly expanded to include the entire living room instead of just a small area.
3. The park view from the dining room is opened up.
You don’t have to like it, and you don’t even have to engage with it—that is my job as the original poster—but no one here was on drugs, and neither I nor the architect appreciate such remarks.
UJS-Nord schrieb:
In most cases, they receive excellent advice, Excellent? No, unfortunately, @Escroda has become a silent observer. My own posts are mostly perceived here as "witty, but mostly helpful," and I don’t want to disagree with that.
UJS-Nord schrieb:
with words to consider that the person concerned would never dare to throw at someone’s head in real, personal life. … however, I must firmly reject this: in real life I am exactly the same "Kölsche Jung" (a Cologne native) with a Berlin attitude but a Standard German accent.
UJS-Nord schrieb:
So overall: the cheeky tilt can only be due to drugs. I prefer the Malmsheimer expression "Sub_stan_ces" and was eagerly awaiting the (non-BMW-rear-light) illuminating explanation – unfortunately, it hasn’t appeared here so far, and I haven’t received a private message either.
UJS-Nord schrieb:
The architect who contributed to this design had THREE things in mind, in his boldness: 1. The wall tilted about 30 degrees allows sunlight in the dining room TWO hours earlier than a right angle would. 2. The line of sight from the dining room to the living room is significantly expanded to cover the entire living room instead of a small area.
3. The park view from the dining room is opened up. There you go – now it can be understood :-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
There you go – now it’s understandable 🙂There you go?? “Now it’s understandable?” “Substances”? Using a “moody guy from Cologne” as justification for inappropriate, irrelevant, and disparaging remarks that the original poster and their architect were on “substances”?
How self-absorbed and out of touch with reality can someone be? Nobody needs that.
No, the design could have been understood much earlier, especially if someone had engaged with it. A sightline is a sightline, and it can be recognized even in 2D, which the guy from Cologne values so highly.
No further comments are welcomed.
P
pagoni20204 Jan 2021 00:53Nida35a schrieb:
Why do your pictures remind me of @pagoni2020’s design,
the outer shape, open inside, and incredibly flexible room layout UJS-Nord schrieb:
Yes, true, and thanks for the note, but the opposite plot situation applies here: a southwest-facing plot, there a northeast-facing plot. Uh... no, almost exactly the same orientation, though I don’t necessarily think our ideas are worth copying; after all, there are two of us.
Maybe the similarity is that we both wanted to incorporate the sunny side as a terrace and also the almost north-facing side with a view of a lake into the living space. This led us to move away from the bungalow concept because the lake can only be seen from the upper floor. After much back and forth, we have now created a "second" living room upstairs and kept the lower floor smaller, as it was a bit tight down there anyway. We will now have a small balcony facing the lake to the north on the upper floor and a large south/east terrace on the ground floor.
The similarity could also be in the original idea, since our initial drafts featured a house with a slight bend, so we could have the lake view straight ahead upstairs.
After trying various roof options, we realized it would look awkwardly bulky in our case. Additionally, we are building with a general contractor, and despite significant freedoms, there are limits. Some options are simply not feasible for us, which is fine because we chose to build with this contractor consciously.
Once we settled on a long rectangular shape and no longer subordinated everything to the lake view, planning became much easier.
Your first pictures show a simple building form, which I really like, especially if it is elongated.
In your drawing, I "miss" a focus on living together with your aging son. By the time the house is finished, he will be two years older, and who knows how long he will stay with you. Until then and beyond, I would envision something like a small apartment within the house for him—something that can at least be arranged if needed. If this is included in the floor plan, some other things might not be possible, but it would offer freedom for him and for you to live together with a kind of healthy distance, regardless of his age. And... a small apartment (a private room with shower/toilet plus a micro-kitchen option) can be useful for many purposes in life.
Our children have moved out, but this separation or option would have been important for us.
So, the architectural work has progressed... I’m still not completely satisfied with it (NO, I did not initiate the slant on the left side of the ground floor, and I don’t think it’s ideal here either), but maybe you’ll find the basic idea of a T or L shape fitting, especially the concept of “two” building volumes (horizontally wide facing the street, with a vertical barn placed on top).
There are two ground floor versions: one with the living room in the left wing and kitchen plus dining in the “barn,” and the other switched around. Any feedback from anyone is welcome.
Stair placement?
Bathroom on the second floor??
Version 1 or Version 2 for the ground floor? Or Version 3?
There are two ground floor versions: one with the living room in the left wing and kitchen plus dining in the “barn,” and the other switched around. Any feedback from anyone is welcome.
Stair placement?
Bathroom on the second floor??
Version 1 or Version 2 for the ground floor? Or Version 3?
UJS-Nord schrieb:
the concept of "two" building volumes (horizontally wide facing the street, vertical barn built on top In a laudation for the winner of the Posemuckel Architecture Award, one might call that a concept, but...
UJS-Nord schrieb:
Any criticism from anyone is welcome. Al Borland, his mother, and I don’t think so, Tim 🙂
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics