ᐅ Dream Home Floor Plan – 173 m² with 3 Children’s Bedrooms

@roteweste
The comparison to barking dogs is, in a way, quite fitting. My intention was to provoke reflection through strongly critical remarks, not to come across as insulting or condescending.
I recognize the difference between a professionally prepared psychological profile and a private assessment of a situation, especially when reading my own diagnosis; any possible overestimations of myself have been naturally corrected by life over time.
I cannot take away your fear of being "lectured" by a supposedly great expert; that fear did not originate from me but was already evident in your initial post.
The line between accepting constructive criticism and feeling patronized by it seems to be very thin in this case.
Apparently, I am not the only one wondering what expectations you had when posting your project in this critical building forum, while at the same time referring people to your private website; and setting the rule that you won’t accept any contributions, no matter how sensible, which might interrupt your "popcorn eating."
Everyone perceives this in their own way, and I have shared mine with you.

By doing this, you offend those forum members who engage openly, constructively, and enthusiastically with others’ projects or problems, bringing in their diverse knowledge, creativity, or effort, precisely to help others or point out possible, understandable errors in thinking (which you unfortunately call a "board in front of the head").
Excluding that kind of interaction from the start and directing people to a private website is not forbidden, but it devalues the input offered here and especially suggests that you only want to present something you personally consider successful. In my opinion, this goes against the very purpose of this forum.

After all, this forum is meant to inspire new, different, and even unanticipated ideas—the very thing you want to share with others through your Derinrm project.
Here, you should rather be in the position of a "receiver" and ideally be willing to learn, not the "giver." In that role, you simply are not, which is not necessarily a problem in itself.

roteweste schrieb:

What bothers me, however, is that even common statements like “aesthetics, sense of space, and space utilization are subjective” are sometimes contradicted here. There is a certain mindset behind that.

Well, I actually learned that. Although at high school, the design theory classes were more about discussion, I was still taught why — in short — the golden ratio exists and what it achieves.
During my training, which likely took place before you were even planned, it was about spatial concepts, optics, and such “stuff.” Back then, it wasn’t just discussed but also tested.
However, it’s not necessary to learn it formally. Some people have harmony instinctively, from the gut and heart. Some members here in the forum probably have that intuitive sense, which is why they can distinguish harmony, tension, and incompatibilities. Additionally, many of them have been involved in house design planning for more than half their lives, for whatever reason. Whether it’s a related profession or “gut feeling.”
Of course, these teachings are subject to change over time. You always have to rediscover yourself and new styles and also be ready to adapt to others’ needs when it comes to client wishes.
Then there are those who just google and find something like “floor plan shows.” Until yesterday, I didn’t even know about that. It’s nice that such things exist. I’ll take a closer look at it over the weekend.
At the same time, it feels a bit odd when someone presents themselves as a newcomer in a group or forum as if they’ve reinvented the wheel and have just one perfect solution they want to share with the “experienced” members.
I’m not saying experienced people can’t learn anything new. As mentioned above, you always have to keep up with changing times, even though fundamentals like the golden ratio remain valid.

What is being discussed here is the kitchen. If we’re talking about a modern, eccentric, or just a remarkable house of today, sightlines might be planned that interact with the entrance to the house, so people get a hint that there is a great social hub inside, or can even “reach out” to it visually.
Why is this so magical? Because in every historical era, people naturally gathered where the fire was burning and the stew was simmering. Either there was only one room or additional rooms were built further back to ensure quietness.
Cave, hut, house. Always the same. Only where money, lots of money, was available and power ruled did things differ. But one thing has remained the same: at the fire and the stew, there was the most fun, dancing, and joy due to lively gatherings.
Today, there are more possibilities in house construction, and people take more liberties, plus the role of the house itself has changed. So, it’s about the communal cooking experience. Drinking wine at the counter is an established style, and lifestyle shows on TV repeatedly highlight the kitchen.

roteweste schrieb:

I would fundamentally disagree with that on a basic level. Even practical aspects can appear differently for each person. Just think of the kitchen and who does what and how much there at what time.

This was still about aesthetics and the sense of space.
Others criticized it precisely because they considered your personality. Five people, three children. That might also be reflected in the kitchen or its condition, which might not be exactly what you want to see when entering. That’s how I understood it. I, however, have a completely different view. In my opinion, a kitchen with five people should also reflect life.
For me, the U-shape combined with the door creates a bottleneck: if three or more people (man, woman, child, or guests) are in the kitchen, there’s only one way out — around the island, half out through the door, to end up halfway back in front of the island. That might still work with one or two people, but with three or more, it becomes complicated.

Arauki11 schrieb:

@rotewesteThis forum is meant to be a source of inspiration for new ideas, different approaches, and even things you haven't considered, which you want to share with others through your project.
Here, you should be a “taker” and ideally willing to learn, not the “giver,” as you are not in that position—which in itself is not a problem.

Unfortunately, the last part of my post was censored, so the remark doesn't quite flow anymore. Oh well. I don’t understand why the discussion itself can’t just be the goal. No one here needs to be convinced of anything.

ypg schrieb:

Actually, I did learn this. Although in high school design classes we mostly discussed things, we were also taught why—summarized—it’s all about the golden ratio and what it does.

You are absolutely right, and you describe yourself how these basic principles have repeatedly appeared throughout history in various forms—depending on skill, needs, and of course budget.

ypg schrieb:

However, it also seems odd to me when someone presents themselves as a beginner in a group or forum as if they have just reinvented the wheel and claim to have the one and only solution, wanting to share knowledge with the “experienced.”

Where have I done that again? Your posts would be so much better if you left out these arbitrary claims. Otherwise, please quote me—maybe my memory is just that bad. I apologize in advance. My ego doesn’t need stroking; with three kids, I have other concerns.

ypg schrieb:

For me, the U-shaped kitchen combined with the door is a bottleneck: if three or more people (man, woman, child, or guest) are busy in the kitchen, there is only one way out—around the island, halfway out the door, then back into the kitchen in front of the island. That may still work with one or two people, but three or more makes it complicated.

Personally, three people in the kitchen are already too many for me. From my (not very extensive) experience, three people mostly just get in each other’s way. Better to have the others sit at the dining table to do some chopping (which could also be done on the other side of the counter with our U-shaped kitchen).

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

My experience so far with our build is: the fewer demands, personal creations, and special requests you have, the less stress there will be, because then a standard floor plan from any prefab house company will simply be enough. Well, that’s not how people think—unfortunately, me neither :-D. Nobody wants something off the shelf; everyone wants something individual and to express themselves.

That’s a nice admission and kind of typically German: when you invest that much money, it has to be perfect. Too bad perfection doesn’t exist. Eventually, the house is built, and you have to live with it—and in most cases (surely in our house as well), you can live with it quite well. Those who are always looking for flaws will never be happy. But I totally understand you. I’m similar and constantly have to fight against my own nature as well.

11ant schrieb:

I’ll let others comment first—perhaps someone wants to share their thoughts on the content of my input (especially guessing what I will start with). With that said: see you in a week (whether Dieter Meier will still be here then or not)!

Well then, even though it took a bit longer during the year-end rush: here comes my promised input. As expected, I start with the fantasy dimensions that cause fudge points in masonry construction. It’s wrong to conclude that these wouldn’t matter in timber construction. Their relevance is essentially the same, although the criticality is less severe. Even in the production of timber frame panels, there are fixed module spacings for the studs (625 mm (25 inches), less commonly 833 mm (33 inches), occasionally others). The step length differs from masonry (where 750 mm (30 inches) is typical and sensible), but the principle is what matters here, so the specific modular dimension of the manufacturer is irrelevant and does not weigh in. In any case, in production and in the structural basic concept of every manufacturer’s building system, these are fixed, and inserting arbitrary incremental dimensions inevitably leads to the need for replacements. I will list the most obvious examples of specific dimensions:

The wall segment length 1.19 m (47 inches) on the left side of the front facade contrasts with 1.21 m (48 inches) at the back next to the sliding door, around the corner it is 1.32 m (52 inches), and similarly on the upper floor with 1.41 m (56 inches) on the garden facade left and right, but parallel at the bathroom 1.39 m (55 inches) and on the children’s side 1.57 m (62 inches) and 1.425 m (56 inches). From a watchmaker’s perspective, off measurements are 1.39 m (55 inches) on the front facade right at the bathroom and below 1.46 m (58 inches). The window widths are reasonably coordinated so as not to create a too chaotic mix. Differences of 2 cm (1 inch) between 1.19 and 1.21 m (and the cluster of 1.39 / 1.41 / 1.425 / 1.46 m) indicate a poor handling of the building system by the architect (or even disinterest), which I didn’t expect here. The most difficult to assess is the 4.5 cm (2 inches) reveal projection (41 vs. 36.5 cm (16 vs. 14 inches)) at the living room window door. In my view, these are all signs of carelessness (yes, I know the younger generation calls that chillness, but it doesn’t make it better). Concerning the stairs, offsets are missing at the starting step, landing, and exit matching the theoretical depth of the last tread (a tripping hazard because it demands attention or light; avoiding this would be easy, and in my opinion the mistake “saves” only one tread depth in terms of stair footprint).

Requesting quotes from eight suppliers all at once strikes me as wasteful, and a price range from 2,900 to 4,200 USD (per square meter) as an initial suspicion of rough base parameters. And both that while limiting to only one construction method (?)

I share the skepticism regarding the double-wing living room door; as for the balcony, I am a laundry line user myself. Bikes (and especially trash bins) are no placeholders but really should not already be impractically planned. I would never remove a foundation slab from the shell construction stage, regardless of construction method, so certainly not with a general contractor either. I agree with @hanghaus2023’s suggestion of a terrain-adapted, height-offset garage relative to the house. The heights should be coordinated so that the house’s interior door is floor-to-ceiling height; the window over the utility sink might need to be relocated, as the wall segment of 41 cm (16 inches) “width” may be too tight. Perhaps details like these illustrate my extreme reservation toward plans without accompanying, on-site architects. Regarding the garage, I suggest my namesake (not related or connected) for consideration. By the way, my likes on fellow participants’ posts are part of my comments, so I usually do not explicitly repeat most relevant statements; the “list” of my mentions of other comments is not meant to be complete.

roteweste schrieb:

While reading your post, I couldn’t help but think of our two neighbor dogs. You go for a walk unsuspectingly, and suddenly they come barking around the corner and mark their territory. Clearly, nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. You just keep going and get barked at. These two gems have learned: If people keep walking, I have prevailed. I am right.

Those two gems can also learn that you don’t need a weapons permit for water pistols of any caliber, and as far as I know, none is needed for dog whistles either. Then it will be clear again who the boss is.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

And that even though we, after the millionfold repeated recommendations, deliberately did not have the builder’s sales rep do the planning but commissioned an architect, only planned as far as the draft, had several builders provide bids based on that draft, and then had the chosen builder execute the construction. It still somehow turned out half-baked and had to be tuned up in many places afterward.

The “half-baked” outcome is avoidable, and I regret if I have been misunderstood on this point: in my opinion, choosing a general contractor too early, and subsequently engaging the architect only for service phase 3 (design development) rather than the full module B, merely serves to avoid duplicating service phase 4 (construction documents). For this reason, I consistently preach the motto “3 + 5 = 8.”

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

SliPkNoT1848 schrieb:

Have you requested quotes from local companies? We have offers ranging from $60k to $70k for 144 m² (1550 ft²) of floor area + $17k for 56 m² (600 ft²) (garage), totaling about $85k, plus $4k for drainage pipes, $3k for drainage system, $2k for inspection shaft, $6k for insulation to KfW40 standard, and $2k for driveway and terrace graveling = approximately $100k. That seems very high to me at the moment. The soil survey report is unfortunately still pending; hopefully, it will have a significant (and hopefully positive) impact.

Extremely expensive. This spring I paid about $25k gross for a similar size slab (25 cm (10 inches) thick). That included drainage, grounding, installation of multiple utilities, base layer, and 10 cm (4 inches) perimeter insulation.
Excavation and the installation and compaction of gravel were done as DIY.
A 36 m² (390 ft²) troweled slab (20 cm (8 inches) thick) for the garage cost $3000 gross.

Hello 11ant,

nice to see you’ve written something again. We will definitely take the measurements you mentioned into account for the next phase of our planning. From design phase 4 onward, the architect from the house-building company will take over. Hopefully, they know what they’re doing.

11ant schrieb:
Requesting quotes from eight providers at once seems excessive to me, and a price range from 2.9 to 4.2 k /sqm (square meter) as an initial estimate suggests the basis is too rough. And that’s both considering just one construction method (?)

We’ve heard the same from other experts (literally). Honestly, three of the quotes were rejected immediately in our case. I didn’t expect the range for our house to be somewhere between 3k and 4.5k per square meter. Our calculation probably still works up to about 3.5k per square meter.
We have now narrowed our comparison down to three providers and will soon begin preliminary selection with them. It’s been and still is quite stressful.

11ant schrieb:
I share your skepticism regarding the double-wing living room door

We have now agreed about 90% to leave the door out for the time being. I’m still working on the remaining 10%. We’re still undecided whether to build it with or without a lintel. Do you have any advice? In any case, later on—considering three teenagers in the house—we could install a door cleverly.

11ant schrieb:
Bicycles (and even more so trash bins) are not placeholders; their practical space requirements should definitely be adequately planned

We also went back and forth about the trash bins. They are currently positioned in the garage more or less as placeholders. At the moment, I consider a triple bin container on the north side the most sensible solution. Here are the original dimensions for such containers:

11ant schrieb:
I agree with the suggestion by @hanghaus2023 for a garage that is stepped to match the site height relative to the house

Thanks again to hanghaus at this point.

11ant schrieb:
The two little treasures can also learn that you don’t need a license for water guns of any caliber, and as far as I know, the same applies to dog whistles. That way it’s clear again who’s in charge.

Fortunately, in real life, no one stands nearby to turn off your water gun halfway through.

[/QUOTE]Not without reason do I always preach the motto “3 + 5 = 8.”[/QUOTE]
We have fully completed the first three. Thanks again for your tips.

By the way, here’s a rendered image of the cloakroom as we envision it: