ᐅ Urban-style villa 160–170 m², issue with connecting the entrance foyer to the garage
Created on: 30 Jan 2019 22:08
H
Hemingway84
Development Plan / Restrictions:
Plot size: 20.0 m x 30.0 m (600 m²)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.8
Building envelope, building line, and boundary: only the standard setbacks
Edge development: permitted for garages according to § 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO
Number of parking spaces: 3 (required)
Number of floors: 2
Roof style: none
Architectural style: none
Orientation: none
Maximum heights / limits: eaves height max. 7.0 m (23 ft)
Additional requirements: roof pitch 25° to 45°
Client Requirements:
Architectural style, roof type, building type: Modern, hipped roof, urban villa
Basement, floors: no basement, 2 full floors
Number of occupants, age: 2 (34, 31), planning for future children
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor: see layout in separate floor plans, approx. 160 - 170 m² (1722 - 1829 sq ft)
Office: home office with 2 fully equipped workstations (shared use)
Guest bedrooms per year: max. 2 at the same time, 4 to 6 times per year
Open or closed layout: closed
Conservative or modern construction: modern?
Open kitchen, kitchen island: closed (to contain odors), possibly a kitchen island, undecided
Number of dining seats: 6 in the dining room, 4 in the kitchen (high chair option)
Fireplace: rather no
Music / stereo wall: rather no
Balcony, roof terrace: definitely no
Garage, carport: garage connected to the house via a vestibule
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions: cat flap in vestibule from the house (location of cat litter box)
House Design:
Who designed it: DIY, compiled from sample floor plans
What do you like most? Why? The vestibule as a "buffer zone" and transition to the garage
What do you not like? Why? The vestibule with garage can only be realized as edge development due to the plot width according to (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO). Difficulty managing height differences between garage and vestibule to house (floor slab height with floor build-up) due to maximum allowable average room height for garage with vestibule of 3.0 m (10 ft) (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO)
Price estimate according to architect/planner: pending; preliminary estimates put the house with special features (ventilation system, clear ceiling height 2.7 m (9 ft), BUS system, etc.) around 350,000 EUR, garage with vestibule about 50,000 EUR
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 350,000 EUR
Preferred heating system: heat pump, possibly gas if significantly cheaper and with the option for later conversion to heat pump
If you have to give up certain details/extensions
- What can you do without: BUS system, masonry garage (possibly similar solution with prefabricated garage if feasible)
- What you cannot do without: vestibule
Why is the design the way it is now?
Reviewed countless brochures, show homes, a felt optimum for the planned living area
What do you think is particularly good or bad about it?
If we knew. Apparently bad is the garage/vestibule planning, because it is complicated due to edge development and height differences to the house (the plot itself is flat, previously farmland), also expensive (50,000 EUR)
What is the essential question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
How can the garage with vestibule be realized cheaper, easier, or more smoothly (e.g., vestibule as bay window and prefab garage)?
By the way: street side is NW, garage NE, garden SE
Ideas, suggestions, criticism — everything welcome, especially regarding vestibule with garage!
We want both to be simple but well built. Dry and sealed, uninsulated and unheated. During the first consultation, the preferred builder proposed instead a vestibule attached to the building envelope (extended bay window), mainly because of the height difference between building (floor slab height with floor buildup) and garage with vestibule. We would therefore opt for a flat roof with a height gradient from 3.5 m (11.5 ft) on the street side to 2.5 m (8 ft) on the garden side, with a compliant average wall height of 3.0 m (10 ft) (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO). A sketch of the side view can be found in the "Garage side" illustration, and a corresponding top view in the "Garage top" illustration.
At first glance, with such a roof gradient, it should be possible to compensate for the height differences from the garage area to the vestibule and from the vestibule into the building without the flat roof feeling oppressive at the transition to the building. The chosen flat roof variant is designed for internal roof drainage, avoiding any roof overhangs. We can only guess what the standard clear floor height (floor slab plus floor build-up) over finished ground level usually is. For simplicity in our sketches, we assumed 50 cm (20 inches). From this, we derived 25 cm (10 inches) for the vestibule and 0 cm (0 inches) for the garage. Realistically, 50 cm (20 inches) is probably the upper limit, with more typical heights between 30 and 40 cm (12 and 16 inches).
Plot size: 20.0 m x 30.0 m (600 m²)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.8
Building envelope, building line, and boundary: only the standard setbacks
Edge development: permitted for garages according to § 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO
Number of parking spaces: 3 (required)
Number of floors: 2
Roof style: none
Architectural style: none
Orientation: none
Maximum heights / limits: eaves height max. 7.0 m (23 ft)
Additional requirements: roof pitch 25° to 45°
Client Requirements:
Architectural style, roof type, building type: Modern, hipped roof, urban villa
Basement, floors: no basement, 2 full floors
Number of occupants, age: 2 (34, 31), planning for future children
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor: see layout in separate floor plans, approx. 160 - 170 m² (1722 - 1829 sq ft)
Office: home office with 2 fully equipped workstations (shared use)
Guest bedrooms per year: max. 2 at the same time, 4 to 6 times per year
Open or closed layout: closed
Conservative or modern construction: modern?
Open kitchen, kitchen island: closed (to contain odors), possibly a kitchen island, undecided
Number of dining seats: 6 in the dining room, 4 in the kitchen (high chair option)
Fireplace: rather no
Music / stereo wall: rather no
Balcony, roof terrace: definitely no
Garage, carport: garage connected to the house via a vestibule
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions: cat flap in vestibule from the house (location of cat litter box)
House Design:
Who designed it: DIY, compiled from sample floor plans
What do you like most? Why? The vestibule as a "buffer zone" and transition to the garage
What do you not like? Why? The vestibule with garage can only be realized as edge development due to the plot width according to (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO). Difficulty managing height differences between garage and vestibule to house (floor slab height with floor build-up) due to maximum allowable average room height for garage with vestibule of 3.0 m (10 ft) (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO)
Price estimate according to architect/planner: pending; preliminary estimates put the house with special features (ventilation system, clear ceiling height 2.7 m (9 ft), BUS system, etc.) around 350,000 EUR, garage with vestibule about 50,000 EUR
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 350,000 EUR
Preferred heating system: heat pump, possibly gas if significantly cheaper and with the option for later conversion to heat pump
If you have to give up certain details/extensions
- What can you do without: BUS system, masonry garage (possibly similar solution with prefabricated garage if feasible)
- What you cannot do without: vestibule
Why is the design the way it is now?
Reviewed countless brochures, show homes, a felt optimum for the planned living area
What do you think is particularly good or bad about it?
If we knew. Apparently bad is the garage/vestibule planning, because it is complicated due to edge development and height differences to the house (the plot itself is flat, previously farmland), also expensive (50,000 EUR)
What is the essential question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
How can the garage with vestibule be realized cheaper, easier, or more smoothly (e.g., vestibule as bay window and prefab garage)?
By the way: street side is NW, garage NE, garden SE
Ideas, suggestions, criticism — everything welcome, especially regarding vestibule with garage!
We want both to be simple but well built. Dry and sealed, uninsulated and unheated. During the first consultation, the preferred builder proposed instead a vestibule attached to the building envelope (extended bay window), mainly because of the height difference between building (floor slab height with floor buildup) and garage with vestibule. We would therefore opt for a flat roof with a height gradient from 3.5 m (11.5 ft) on the street side to 2.5 m (8 ft) on the garden side, with a compliant average wall height of 3.0 m (10 ft) (§ 6 Abs. 8 Nr. 1 BbgBO). A sketch of the side view can be found in the "Garage side" illustration, and a corresponding top view in the "Garage top" illustration.
At first glance, with such a roof gradient, it should be possible to compensate for the height differences from the garage area to the vestibule and from the vestibule into the building without the flat roof feeling oppressive at the transition to the building. The chosen flat roof variant is designed for internal roof drainage, avoiding any roof overhangs. We can only guess what the standard clear floor height (floor slab plus floor build-up) over finished ground level usually is. For simplicity in our sketches, we assumed 50 cm (20 inches). From this, we derived 25 cm (10 inches) for the vestibule and 0 cm (0 inches) for the garage. Realistically, 50 cm (20 inches) is probably the upper limit, with more typical heights between 30 and 40 cm (12 and 16 inches).
ypg schrieb:
For one, the staircase seems much shorter than it should be. Yes, it really does look short. I hadn’t noticed that before. Does Town & Country only have a ceiling height of 2.40m (7 feet 10 inches)? Probably, right? That’s not ideal for a 170m² (1830 square feet) house.
Mottenhausen schrieb:
I would skip the additional charges for floor plan changes with Town & Country. Either build exactly as planned or design freely I do hope they are only a source of inspiration here and not the general contractor, otherwise I fully agree.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
M
Mottenhausen31 Jan 2019 21:39Since I know the exact same Town & Country house firsthand from a coworker (the upper floor version, however, has only 2 children’s bedrooms, a downstairs toilet without a shower, and instead a square utility room), I can tell you: the staircase is unfortunately very steep! It’s rather awkward to use.
They also made the same change to the kitchen: a door to the hallway and a wall to the living room without a door. By the way, it’s not nearly as cramped as you might think, despite the office on the ground floor. The floor plan itself is not bad. Of course, the 24cm (9.5 inches) Ytong exterior walls (11.5cm (4.5 inches) interior) also help to maximize the use of space.
They also made the same change to the kitchen: a door to the hallway and a wall to the living room without a door. By the way, it’s not nearly as cramped as you might think, despite the office on the ground floor. The floor plan itself is not bad. Of course, the 24cm (9.5 inches) Ytong exterior walls (11.5cm (4.5 inches) interior) also help to maximize the use of space.
H
Hemingway8423 Feb 2019 14:23Thank you very much for your contributions!
I’m now sharing the initial drawing draft from the construction company.
No, it’s not Town & Country. I only used the Town & Country floor plan for mock-up purposes. The clear ceiling height is planned to be 2.70 meters (8 feet 10 inches). Thanks also for the tip regarding the staircase!
We are considering extending the house by about 1.0 to 2.0 meters (3 to 6 feet 7 inches) to the rear for the next draft in order to create a larger living room. My partner currently finds it too small, and practically there’s no flexibility, as the study should not be smaller, and neither should the kitchen. Also, this would allow us to make the children’s/guest bedrooms upstairs a bit larger. Right now, they seem a bit small. Without increasing the floor area, we probably won’t be able to properly fit this number of rooms.
We could also increase the roof pitch up to 45° to expand the space under the roof (for example, relocating the study and guest rooms to the top floor to have a larger living room on the ground floor). Maybe this would be more cost-effective than simply enlarging the house's footprint? But then there’s probably the issue of temperatures under the roof (the study would be used regularly) and integrating it into the planned active ventilation system.
On the other hand, only two full stories are allowed. How large could such an attic conversion be in this scenario without causing problems with the building permit / planning permission? Considering the roof slopes and the floor area, would it be possible to create one or two usable rooms?
These are certainly many questions for the construction company, but they are incredibly slow and complacent, so I’m trying to make faster progress with the forum’s expertise. Unfortunately, the still fairly affordable plot now comes with a building commitment :-(.
I’m now sharing the initial drawing draft from the construction company.
No, it’s not Town & Country. I only used the Town & Country floor plan for mock-up purposes. The clear ceiling height is planned to be 2.70 meters (8 feet 10 inches). Thanks also for the tip regarding the staircase!
We are considering extending the house by about 1.0 to 2.0 meters (3 to 6 feet 7 inches) to the rear for the next draft in order to create a larger living room. My partner currently finds it too small, and practically there’s no flexibility, as the study should not be smaller, and neither should the kitchen. Also, this would allow us to make the children’s/guest bedrooms upstairs a bit larger. Right now, they seem a bit small. Without increasing the floor area, we probably won’t be able to properly fit this number of rooms.
We could also increase the roof pitch up to 45° to expand the space under the roof (for example, relocating the study and guest rooms to the top floor to have a larger living room on the ground floor). Maybe this would be more cost-effective than simply enlarging the house's footprint? But then there’s probably the issue of temperatures under the roof (the study would be used regularly) and integrating it into the planned active ventilation system.
On the other hand, only two full stories are allowed. How large could such an attic conversion be in this scenario without causing problems with the building permit / planning permission? Considering the roof slopes and the floor area, would it be possible to create one or two usable rooms?
These are certainly many questions for the construction company, but they are incredibly slow and complacent, so I’m trying to make faster progress with the forum’s expertise. Unfortunately, the still fairly affordable plot now comes with a building commitment :-(.
H
Hemingway8423 Feb 2019 14:36Addendum: The marked vestibule is now intended to be more open across its entire width toward the hallway, realized as a bay window that is part of the building envelope.
O
Obstlerbaum23 Feb 2019 18:02The guest room takes up quite a bit of space in a prominent location. And you have two dining areas, but neither of them is really spacious...
Similar topics