Good morning everyone,
after the great advice on the topic of "terrace house" in the general forum, we have now purchased the small plot and will soon have the first more detailed discussions with general contractors (and possibly architects), from whom we would like to have the house built "turnkey."
Since I would like to be well prepared for the discussions and ask the right questions straight away, I would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or criticism on the first amateur floor plan draft.
The design and interior layout are not meant to be exact to the centimeter but rather to show what is basically possible within the building envelope. Since it is a terrace house, no windows are allowed on the east-facing wall. We are initially planning with a basement. Compared to many other examples here, this is probably a fairly classic or rather plain design for most, but I’m afraid not much else is possible.
Many thanks in advance!
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size – 240 sqm (2,583 sq ft)
Slope – none
Floor area ratio 0.4
Building envelope, building line, and boundary – 8.5 x 11 m (28 x 36 ft)
Border development – terrace house, meaning direct boundary development on the left (still vacant) and right (already developed)
Roof type – gable roof 35°-40°
Maximum heights / limits – ridge height max. 9.5 m (31 ft); eaves height max. 6.0 m (20 ft)
Client Requirements
Basement, floors – basement yes, 2 full floors, attic as potential conversion space
Number of people, ages – 3 persons (32, 34, 4)
House design
Planning source: do-it-yourself
Personal budget for the house: €300,000 + €50,000 basement + €50,000 ancillary building costs
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Does the floor plan make sense as is, or could a small separate office be included through a smarter layout? Should certain rooms be bigger or smaller?
after the great advice on the topic of "terrace house" in the general forum, we have now purchased the small plot and will soon have the first more detailed discussions with general contractors (and possibly architects), from whom we would like to have the house built "turnkey."
Since I would like to be well prepared for the discussions and ask the right questions straight away, I would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or criticism on the first amateur floor plan draft.
The design and interior layout are not meant to be exact to the centimeter but rather to show what is basically possible within the building envelope. Since it is a terrace house, no windows are allowed on the east-facing wall. We are initially planning with a basement. Compared to many other examples here, this is probably a fairly classic or rather plain design for most, but I’m afraid not much else is possible.
Many thanks in advance!
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size – 240 sqm (2,583 sq ft)
Slope – none
Floor area ratio 0.4
Building envelope, building line, and boundary – 8.5 x 11 m (28 x 36 ft)
Border development – terrace house, meaning direct boundary development on the left (still vacant) and right (already developed)
Roof type – gable roof 35°-40°
Maximum heights / limits – ridge height max. 9.5 m (31 ft); eaves height max. 6.0 m (20 ft)
Client Requirements
Basement, floors – basement yes, 2 full floors, attic as potential conversion space
Number of people, ages – 3 persons (32, 34, 4)
House design
Planning source: do-it-yourself
Personal budget for the house: €300,000 + €50,000 basement + €50,000 ancillary building costs
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Does the floor plan make sense as is, or could a small separate office be included through a smarter layout? Should certain rooms be bigger or smaller?
@kaho674 ... Katja, @Mbk84 shared this staircase layout from their supplier:
Landing width is 101 cm (40 inches) plus about 4 cm (1.5 inches) railing at the top side, and the stairwell railing reduces the 101 cm (40 inches) width further.
I would also like to keep the landing width as it is.
However, if you want a tread depth of more than 23 cm (9 inches), each additional centimeter (inch) in tread depth adds 7 cm (2.8 inches) to the total length of 270 cm (106 inches).
I had a floor-to-floor height of 285 or 290 cm (112 or 114 inches) in mind, which means an approximate clear ceiling height of 254 cm (100 inches).
Landing width is 101 cm (40 inches) plus about 4 cm (1.5 inches) railing at the top side, and the stairwell railing reduces the 101 cm (40 inches) width further.
I would also like to keep the landing width as it is.
However, if you want a tread depth of more than 23 cm (9 inches), each additional centimeter (inch) in tread depth adds 7 cm (2.8 inches) to the total length of 270 cm (106 inches).
I had a floor-to-floor height of 285 or 290 cm (112 or 114 inches) in mind, which means an approximate clear ceiling height of 254 cm (100 inches).
Let’s see:
7 steps up, then a landing, 7 steps down, with the last step being the exit step – is that correct?
Then, with a steep rise of 19 cm (7.5 inches) (285/15, which should be manageable) and a tight tread width of 25 cm (10 inches) (plus 2 cm (0.8 inches) overhang per step for larger feet):
7 × 25 cm (10 inches) = 175 cm (69 inches) + 100 cm (39 inches) landing = 275 cm (108 inches) up
100 cm (39 inches) landing + 6 × 25 cm (10 inches) = 250 cm (98 inches) + exit (hallway) back
As far as I remember, landings around 275 cm (108 inches) like these are typical for small houses. Or did I miscalculate? Any obvious problem?
In any case, I’d rather have a 19 cm (7.5 inch) rise than only a 23 cm (9 inch) tread. What do you think?
7 steps up, then a landing, 7 steps down, with the last step being the exit step – is that correct?
Then, with a steep rise of 19 cm (7.5 inches) (285/15, which should be manageable) and a tight tread width of 25 cm (10 inches) (plus 2 cm (0.8 inches) overhang per step for larger feet):
7 × 25 cm (10 inches) = 175 cm (69 inches) + 100 cm (39 inches) landing = 275 cm (108 inches) up
100 cm (39 inches) landing + 6 × 25 cm (10 inches) = 250 cm (98 inches) + exit (hallway) back
As far as I remember, landings around 275 cm (108 inches) like these are typical for small houses. Or did I miscalculate? Any obvious problem?
In any case, I’d rather have a 19 cm (7.5 inch) rise than only a 23 cm (9 inch) tread. What do you think?
100 landing plus railing or the clear width is reduced.
In Yvonne’s plan
you could actually try the landing stairs, but it becomes tight at the top if you want to follow "my" version there.
Although my design still prefers the house width of 820 cm (8.2 m / 27 ft). There would still be some space on the left, since Yvonne planned with 850 cm (8.5 m / 28 ft), if I’m not mistaken.
In Yvonne’s plan
you could actually try the landing stairs, but it becomes tight at the top if you want to follow "my" version there.
Although my design still prefers the house width of 820 cm (8.2 m / 27 ft). There would still be some space on the left, since Yvonne planned with 850 cm (8.5 m / 28 ft), if I’m not mistaken.
A 90 cm (35 inch) clear width should be sufficient once you include the handrail. It’s roughly like a doorway, so it should work fine, in my opinion. At the top exit, we save a step if number 7 is the hallway. And I wouldn’t want to give up the 30 cm (12 inch) leading to 8.50 anyway.
Similar topics