ᐅ A three-family house planned without a basement—your feedback on my floor plan.
Created on: 14 Sep 2018 11:50
T
tumaa
Hello everyone,
First of all, thank you for letting me join the forum 🙂.
We (parents and 3 children, aged 10, 8, and 3) have bought a plot of land.
Size: 1170 m² (12,573 sq ft)
Special feature: commercial area
Building project: a three-family house with approximately 300 m² (3,229 sq ft), about 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) for us on the ground floor, and around 73 m² (786 sq ft) for each unit on the upper floor.
There is a single-family house on the plot, which is planned to be demolished.
The preliminary building approval was already positive.
At first, it was planned (I hadn’t really thought about it) that the new building would be constructed on the footprint of the old one.
Then I consulted an architect.
He recommended moving the new building further back on the plot (further north).
Reason:
+ The rear part of the plot is wider, which is better for the building
+ Making better use of the south-facing side for the living and dining area would be more efficient 🙂, plus my wife has a cooking channel with frequent video recordings, so she needs a lot of natural light. (This is very important for us)
We then inquired at the building authority, but the idea was rejected.
Reason: since it is a commercial area, the new building must be constructed on the footprint of the old one. Otherwise, the building office must consider that neighbors might take legal action.
Right next door is a joinery workshop, but production takes place on the other side, so only the warehouse is adjacent. The joiner initially wanted to buy the plot as well; we then received the agreement.
The plot is basically on a corner, separated from the next neighbors by a small path.
My idea was perhaps to get a written confirmation from the neighbors, including the joiner 🙂, stating that they agree with moving the new building further back (see attachment "Site Plan 2"). There is basically no objection; no one would be disturbed (e.g., no loss of view, etc.), and it will be built anyway 🙂.
Otherwise, I would have to stick to the first site plan.
There is also a preliminary floor plan (see attachment).
Another idea: the attic (roof shapes are not specified) could later be used as living space, for example for our son; however, it may only be considered “extended living space” according to the building authority. We are building without a basement, so the attic could initially be used as additional storage.
Question:
- What do you think of our design? At first glance, we like it, but what would you do differently and why?
or
- How else could the house be well positioned?
- Since two rental apartments are planned, what else should be considered, for example regarding privacy?
I’m new to this topic, so please be understanding if I forgot something 🙂.
Thank you in advance and I’m looking forward to your feedback 🙂!!!
First of all, thank you for letting me join the forum 🙂.
We (parents and 3 children, aged 10, 8, and 3) have bought a plot of land.
Size: 1170 m² (12,573 sq ft)
Special feature: commercial area
Building project: a three-family house with approximately 300 m² (3,229 sq ft), about 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) for us on the ground floor, and around 73 m² (786 sq ft) for each unit on the upper floor.
There is a single-family house on the plot, which is planned to be demolished.
The preliminary building approval was already positive.
At first, it was planned (I hadn’t really thought about it) that the new building would be constructed on the footprint of the old one.
Then I consulted an architect.
He recommended moving the new building further back on the plot (further north).
Reason:
+ The rear part of the plot is wider, which is better for the building
+ Making better use of the south-facing side for the living and dining area would be more efficient 🙂, plus my wife has a cooking channel with frequent video recordings, so she needs a lot of natural light. (This is very important for us)
We then inquired at the building authority, but the idea was rejected.
Reason: since it is a commercial area, the new building must be constructed on the footprint of the old one. Otherwise, the building office must consider that neighbors might take legal action.
Right next door is a joinery workshop, but production takes place on the other side, so only the warehouse is adjacent. The joiner initially wanted to buy the plot as well; we then received the agreement.
The plot is basically on a corner, separated from the next neighbors by a small path.
My idea was perhaps to get a written confirmation from the neighbors, including the joiner 🙂, stating that they agree with moving the new building further back (see attachment "Site Plan 2"). There is basically no objection; no one would be disturbed (e.g., no loss of view, etc.), and it will be built anyway 🙂.
Otherwise, I would have to stick to the first site plan.
There is also a preliminary floor plan (see attachment).
Another idea: the attic (roof shapes are not specified) could later be used as living space, for example for our son; however, it may only be considered “extended living space” according to the building authority. We are building without a basement, so the attic could initially be used as additional storage.
Question:
- What do you think of our design? At first glance, we like it, but what would you do differently and why?
or
- How else could the house be well positioned?
- Since two rental apartments are planned, what else should be considered, for example regarding privacy?
I’m new to this topic, so please be understanding if I forgot something 🙂.
Thank you in advance and I’m looking forward to your feedback 🙂!!!
I find this much better!
I’m also worried there might be a misunderstanding: the architect probably envisions the classic semi-detached house, meaning one dwelling unit on each side. But you want to plan one large unit on one side and two smaller units on the other. Such a semi-detached house doesn’t necessarily have to be symmetrical; for example, you can allocate more floor space to the rental unit, and then having two units on one level still works out.
What’s correct is that there are two separate entrances.
I get the impression that the architect is having a bit of difficulty thinking beyond symmetry...
I’m also worried there might be a misunderstanding: the architect probably envisions the classic semi-detached house, meaning one dwelling unit on each side. But you want to plan one large unit on one side and two smaller units on the other. Such a semi-detached house doesn’t necessarily have to be symmetrical; for example, you can allocate more floor space to the rental unit, and then having two units on one level still works out.
What’s correct is that there are two separate entrances.
I get the impression that the architect is having a bit of difficulty thinking beyond symmetry...
Climbee schrieb:
I find this much better!
I also fear there is a misunderstanding: the architect probably envisions a classic duplex, with one dwelling unit on each side. But you want to plan a large unit on one side and two smaller units on the other. Such a duplex doesn’t have to be perfectly symmetrical; for example, you can allocate a bit more floor area to the rented part, and then having two units on one level each will work out.
It is correct that there are two separate entrances.
My impression is that the architect is having some difficulty thinking beyond symmetry...He also mentioned on the phone... The exterior dimensions of the building are right at the property boundary, measuring 12 x 15 meters (39 x 49 feet)... maybe that’s the reason?!
tumaa schrieb:
while having a central staircase offers much more flexibility in accessing and dividing the apartments Show me this flexibility in the discussed design.
tumaa schrieb:
Idea from me/us: the right semi-detached house completely for us spread over 2 levels with an attic, and the left half rented out as 2 apartments (ground floor and upper floor). That’s exactly how I understood the suggestion from @Climbee in #33.
tumaa schrieb:
He also said on the phone... the external dimensions for the building are already at the limit, namely 12x15... maybe that’s the reason?! Why shouldn’t a 12x15 (12m x 15m) building be divisible asymmetrically?
By the way: a “semi-detached house” is not a must—your staircase in the maisonette can be arranged so that it is on the left on the ground floor and on the right on the upper floor (or vice versa)—of course, not with the same architect; they would need to be a bit more creative.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Josephine248918 Sep 2018 21:37tumaa schrieb:
I spoke to our architect about it.....
We can still change our minds at any time, but he listed the disadvantages for us:
- You need two separate entrances, which reduces rentable living space even more than now, and across two floors you only get one (large) apartment per floor, so only 2 residential units on 2 floors (instead of 3 units as mentioned above). (I’ll need to clarify this again, there might be a misunderstanding here)
- It’s difficult to downsize an apartment or make similar changes,
whereas with a central staircase you have much more flexibility in access and apartment layout.
-------------------------------------------------------
My/our idea: right semi-detached house half entirely for us, spread over 2 levels plus the attic, and rent out the left half with 2 apartments (ground floor and upper floor).
Advantages for us would be:
- a bit more privacy, and we could fully utilize our side by converting the attic, so we wouldn’t have to meet neighbors in the staircase in the evening like in the first option; instead of 3 children’s rooms, we could plan for 2, since our son could move into the attic.
- and if we’re ever on our own and the children have moved out, we could take the smaller left apartment (ground floor) and rent out our large one again.
What do you think?I think, regardless of the layout, that sounds much better. That way you can move on to concrete ideas and initial planning – provided the architect is on board. If not, maybe they’re not the right “partner” for your project...
Josephine2489 schrieb:
I would also find that much better, regardless of the layout. That way, you can move into concrete ideas and initial planning — as long as the architect is open to it. Otherwise, they might not be the right "partner" for your project...No, no, he’s open to everything; we can decide on everything.
PS: I would love to see a property like that (probably not common) before my planning stage starts :-)
Whether common or not, it has to work for you. And as I understand it, this option would suit you better.
I’m still not entirely convinced if it’s generally the right approach (keep in mind: the higher your loan, the higher the banker’s commission, right!) to take on such a large debt instead of building only what you need, but if you do, then this is the way to go.
I’m still not entirely convinced if it’s generally the right approach (keep in mind: the higher your loan, the higher the banker’s commission, right!) to take on such a large debt instead of building only what you need, but if you do, then this is the way to go.
Similar topics