ᐅ Single-family bungalow, approximately 1,500 sq ft – looking for floor plan ideas

daichen schrieb:
If the child has to go through the dressing room to reach the bathroom, then that’s just how it is…. this way we avoid having a very long, narrow corridor and save some doors.

But you have wasted space at the front of the dressing room, which doesn’t add any benefit to its function. Also, the dressing room itself is too narrow, just over 1 meter (about 3.3 feet): two 60cm (24 inch) wardrobes set slightly away from the wall leave only 80cm (31 inches) for passage. There’s no room for doors to open or for checking what furniture might fit there widthwise.

daichen schrieb:
We want to use the garage as the entrance; of course, there is a main door with a doorbell by the garage.

@11ant already said it: Combustion engine. A garage is not a living space, and thus using it as the sole main entrance is usually not permitted. There is no proper emergency exit, for example for paramedics or firefighters. That applies to you, too. A room that can be hazardous by its intended use cannot serve as a safe emergency exit. Setting that aside, there are scenarios you want to avoid—like a group of toddlers visiting, or constantly passing by a cold, dark, damp garage. Does it often feel damp where you are? Then the garage will be damp, too.

daichen schrieb:
Why is the entrance there not practical?

See above.

Regarding the staircase:

daichen schrieb:
We wanted it as a backup, in case we plan for more children later.

Then the staircase and stairwell should be designed with appropriate dimensions.

daichen schrieb:
We considered a longer corridor before, but then the dressing room feels too small. Also, the doors don’t fit anymore because the corridor wall would then be at the midpoint of the bathroom door.

This is where a rounded storage or shelving unit in the design might help.

daichen schrieb:
since our current apartment has a very similar layout in the living room.

A house offers more potential than replicating an apartment layout. For example, a standard dining table with chairs requires about 3 meters (10 feet) in width… leaving only about 3 meters (10 feet) for the living area. That’s quite tight and doesn’t support the open living arrangement as shown on the plan.

daichen schrieb:
Currently, in our rented apartment, rooms sized 12–15 m² (130–160 ft²) each have only one window, and we find that sufficient.

Sufficient? For an apartment, perhaps. But if this is a house costing over 300,000 euros, the description and sense of living should be much better.

daichen schrieb:
Bedroom on the south side — Yes, why not?

Because it tends to overheat. Modern new builds are so well insulated that solar heat is hard to dissipate quickly.

daichen schrieb:
But children’s rooms facing east? — Yes, why not?

Because a children’s room facing the street is usually not ideal for a child’s wellbeing.

daichen schrieb:
Garage as entrance? — Yes, why not?

See above.

daichen schrieb:
40° roof pitch over 14 m house width? — How else?

Maybe differently? That will make the house very tall. Especially with a hipped roof, it becomes quite expensive without even planning to use the attic.

daichen schrieb:
What is the alternative?

A redesign.

I’m missing a site plan including the building envelope to get a better idea.

But perhaps you should try to reconcile with the real constraints and our comments, and revisit the planning yourself before going into detail.

The kitchen is already too small for a two-person household: at least three tall cabinets are needed for fridge, oven, and pantry food storage. A corner unit plus a 60cm (24 inch) cabinet for countertop appliances that cannot be stored away is the minimum.

Anything less is a compromise you might accept in a renovation or an apartment, but should be avoided here.

By the way, I really like the idea of using a fixed strip window to bring daylight into the corridor!

Thank you, dertill,

the rooms do seem to be better arranged (in terms of orientation). I also quite like the layout and will draw it up in detail. We’ll plan for a few more windows after all. Thanks for the tip.

11ant, does my “childfree topic” conflict with the “stressed parent chatter”? I haven’t seen any argument why you shouldn’t be able to walk through the walk-in closet (in practice, that is). There are no detours...

ypg, the walk-in closet is wide enough for us. We will use sliding doors, and since the clothes are organized, there’s no need to look sideways.

Then our “main entrance” will be at the terrace, if that is legally required. I think it’s good if the kids can take off their wet shoes in the well-lit garage during winter, so the dirt doesn’t get tracked into the house.

Is there space for a 3-meter (10-foot) table?!

The room arrangement makes sense, I agree with you. Although I don’t really mind the kids’ room facing the street.

We would plan the roof accordingly now, since that is the requirement; if anything changes, we will make the angles sharper, of course.

Site plan: 28 x 60 m (92 x 197 ft), building zone 28 x 20 m (92 x 66 ft), starting 5 meters (16 ft) from the property boundary. What are the real possibilities? Currently, we don’t have any space issues in the kitchen, and we could easily add two more double cabinets. The more space you have, the more clutter you tend to collect, right? But of course, I agree that when building new, it’s best to plan ahead and not be too tight, although every square meter can only be assigned once.

Thank you all (except 11ant, this isn’t a forum for insults) for the suggestions and criticisms. We will consider them and create a new draft. Maybe we’ll wait for the appointment with the architects first and then get back to you.

PS. I’m too bad at quoting.

daichen schrieb:
You’ve also listed a few facts—feel free to share your thoughts with us

• Bedroom on the south side --> Yes, why would it be different?
• But children’s rooms facing east? --> Yes, why would it be different?
• 40° roof pitch over a 14m (46 feet) wide house? --> How else?

I have deleted some points that are a matter of personal taste (hallway, slanted walls, garage cloakroom). At the end of the day, you will live there and obviously have difficulty understanding why some here are surprised. Only one thing stood out to me: in your plan, it looks like the garage door width might not allow both cars to enter and exit freely. In my view, that would only be a 75% solution, leading to a kind of car-Sokoban situation you would have to expect...

Regarding rooms and cardinal directions: Personally, I consider the south and west sides of a house to be the most valuable exterior walls because these are where you create spaces where people spend a lot of time and enjoy being. They capture daylight and warmth, which you don’t really need or want in the bedroom. And with all due respect to your love life, every child spends considerably more time in their room than the parents do in the bedroom. Accordingly, I would give the child a nice south/west or west-facing room. From kindergarten age onward, children are not home in the mornings and don’t gain much from the morning light on the east side.

If the building authority won’t approve a flatter roof, I would seriously consider a two-story house, which is allowed according to the development plan. With a 14m (46 feet) width, you have nearly 6m (20 feet) of clear height under the ridge in the attic space—which would be an unused room otherwise. It would require a bit more effort, but I wouldn’t expect disproportionately higher costs since the floor area would be smaller. Plus, you would automatically have mostly rooms with two exterior walls, which means more natural light inside the house.

Obstlerbaum schrieb:
With a width of 14m (46 feet), you have almost 6m (20 feet) of clear height under the ridge in the attic – in an unused room, no less. It would require some extra effort,

The roof was not included in the design here – only considered conceptually.
This would already mean a very complex roof structure...

which at a 40-degree pitch looks like this (note: there is still some top view shown):

Overall, including the garage, we are talking about just under 24 meters (about 79 feet) in length (a bit less, as I included the roof, which would not have an overhang on the right side due to adjacent buildings). And yes, it would roughly be over 6 meters (20 feet) high, corresponding to two floors/two living levels. However, as drawn, the garage would not fit two cars because the garage door is not large enough.
Extending the house accordingly would not be reasonable.

With a building envelope depth of 20 meters (66 feet) and the mentioned orientation, basically any design that does not extend inward and open to the southwest is problematic.

Currently, the house is positioned widthwise and is working against the plot.

*sniff sniff*

Does it smell like strong resistance to advice here, or am I mistaken???

*slips away again*

Well... resistance... people just want it that way, and they will live in it. It’s that simple. If someone tells me, “I like it like this,” then it doesn’t really matter whether I and thousands of others feel the same or not.