Hello everyone,
I have been reading here for a while, and now it’s time for us to start planning the floor plan. We had our first appointment with the architect this week and have already shared our ideas with him as preparation. We received a first draft, which we will discuss during our meeting. Additionally, we created some rough sketches ourselves (without considering structural issues, windows, the staircase is drawn way too small, etc. – really just very basic to clarify our ideas, I’m attaching those as well).
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 635 sqm (6,840 sq ft)
House size: 135 sqm (1,450 sq ft)
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof type: Gable roof
Maximum heights / limits: Knee wall 1.20 m (4 ft)
(We would have preferred a bungalow or a townhouse, but unfortunately, there are no plots available here. We are happy to have found one at all, even if that means we have to accept 1.5 floors and a knee wall.)
Client requirements
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 2 persons, 39 years old (children are 90% unlikely to be planned)
Office: Home office about once a week – although I usually work from the living room with my laptop
Guest stays: maybe 2 to 3 times a year, so far managed without a guest room in the apartment
Architecture: open plan
Construction style: modern
Kitchen: an island kitchen probably won’t fit, but it should be an open kitchen, possibly with a breakfast bar
Dining seats: 4 to 6 – for occasional visitors – but that could also work by putting in a dining table as needed and otherwise using a kitchen breakfast bar daily
Fireplace: rather no, due to cost and space reasons
Balcony, roof terrace: terrace
Garage, carport: carport
Desired ground floor layout:
Includes utility room, guest WC, hallway, living area (consisting of living room, kitchen, dining area/other)
Entrance and ancillary rooms:
- small hallway with space for a coat rack
- utility room about 8 sqm (86 sq ft), space for technical equipment, washing machine, dog food & co.
- guest WC max. 3 sqm (32 sq ft); no guest shower needed
Living area:
- quick access from the entrance to the living area, ideally directly to the kitchen
- living/kitchen/dining area as large as possible (ideally approx. 50 sqm (540 sq ft)), minimizing space wasted by other areas/rooms on the ground floor
- kitchen possibly with island/breakfast bar if space allows
- book corner with window seat if space allows (for info: I have about 1,000 books and a piano – these need to be accommodated somewhere)
- space-saving staircase, preferably open/integrated in the living area to save hallway space
Desired upper floor layout:
Includes bathroom, bedroom, dressing room, hobby room, another room (possibly office, guest room)
Bathroom:
- bathroom with walk-in shower + bathtub (freestanding = nice to have)
- possible wall separation for the toilet (if it fits)
Sleeping area and dressing room:
- bedroom with walk-in closet/dressing room, if feasible given house size
- access from bedroom to dressing room and bathroom
Additional rooms:
- hobby room with space for desk, crafting corner, small seating area
- another room as office/sports/guest room or possibly a child’s room after all – alternatively, a larger hallway/gallery with seating area and light well to the floor below
House design
Designed by: planner/architect from a design-build company
What don’t we like? Why?
Cost estimate according to architect/planner: $240,000 – that is also the financial plan (excluding kitchen or additional furniture, plot and landscaping – total budget is about $400,000)
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you had to give up something, which features/finishes could you do without? very reluctantly the dressing/walk-in closet
What is the most important fundamental question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
How should we best proceed with the draft? Are there ideas that could help us align better with our wishes for the discussion? Which ideas should we discard?
A few more remarks: Reading other posts here sometimes makes me feel guilty because we are “only” building 135 sqm and everything seems so “small.” Still, I want to get the best possible value for my money. Financially, this size is the most reasonable for now.
(PS: And in case the question arises: Why are children only 90% excluded? There are many reasons – for example, difficulties conceiving, but not completely giving up hope.)
Thank you in advance for your opinions.
I have been reading here for a while, and now it’s time for us to start planning the floor plan. We had our first appointment with the architect this week and have already shared our ideas with him as preparation. We received a first draft, which we will discuss during our meeting. Additionally, we created some rough sketches ourselves (without considering structural issues, windows, the staircase is drawn way too small, etc. – really just very basic to clarify our ideas, I’m attaching those as well).
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 635 sqm (6,840 sq ft)
House size: 135 sqm (1,450 sq ft)
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof type: Gable roof
Maximum heights / limits: Knee wall 1.20 m (4 ft)
(We would have preferred a bungalow or a townhouse, but unfortunately, there are no plots available here. We are happy to have found one at all, even if that means we have to accept 1.5 floors and a knee wall.)
Client requirements
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 2 persons, 39 years old (children are 90% unlikely to be planned)
Office: Home office about once a week – although I usually work from the living room with my laptop
Guest stays: maybe 2 to 3 times a year, so far managed without a guest room in the apartment
Architecture: open plan
Construction style: modern
Kitchen: an island kitchen probably won’t fit, but it should be an open kitchen, possibly with a breakfast bar
Dining seats: 4 to 6 – for occasional visitors – but that could also work by putting in a dining table as needed and otherwise using a kitchen breakfast bar daily
Fireplace: rather no, due to cost and space reasons
Balcony, roof terrace: terrace
Garage, carport: carport
Desired ground floor layout:
Includes utility room, guest WC, hallway, living area (consisting of living room, kitchen, dining area/other)
Entrance and ancillary rooms:
- small hallway with space for a coat rack
- utility room about 8 sqm (86 sq ft), space for technical equipment, washing machine, dog food & co.
- guest WC max. 3 sqm (32 sq ft); no guest shower needed
Living area:
- quick access from the entrance to the living area, ideally directly to the kitchen
- living/kitchen/dining area as large as possible (ideally approx. 50 sqm (540 sq ft)), minimizing space wasted by other areas/rooms on the ground floor
- kitchen possibly with island/breakfast bar if space allows
- book corner with window seat if space allows (for info: I have about 1,000 books and a piano – these need to be accommodated somewhere)
- space-saving staircase, preferably open/integrated in the living area to save hallway space
Desired upper floor layout:
Includes bathroom, bedroom, dressing room, hobby room, another room (possibly office, guest room)
Bathroom:
- bathroom with walk-in shower + bathtub (freestanding = nice to have)
- possible wall separation for the toilet (if it fits)
Sleeping area and dressing room:
- bedroom with walk-in closet/dressing room, if feasible given house size
- access from bedroom to dressing room and bathroom
Additional rooms:
- hobby room with space for desk, crafting corner, small seating area
- another room as office/sports/guest room or possibly a child’s room after all – alternatively, a larger hallway/gallery with seating area and light well to the floor below
House design
Designed by: planner/architect from a design-build company
What don’t we like? Why?
- Narrow galley kitchen. I already have this in my apartment and don’t want it anymore. Is it really not possible to do it differently? Structural or other reasons?
- Staircase located in the dirty area. Shoes, dirt, etc. I don’t want to walk through that every time I go upstairs.
- Dressing room under a sloped ceiling. Not much space left for wardrobes...
- Office only 7 sqm (75 sq ft). Does that make sense? If, against expectations, a child arrives, this would be the hobby room, which would then be much too small.
- Bathrooms. Does the layout make sense? I always thought they should be arranged above/below each other.
- Technical equipment. Could it also be located in the attic?
Cost estimate according to architect/planner: $240,000 – that is also the financial plan (excluding kitchen or additional furniture, plot and landscaping – total budget is about $400,000)
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you had to give up something, which features/finishes could you do without? very reluctantly the dressing/walk-in closet
What is the most important fundamental question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
How should we best proceed with the draft? Are there ideas that could help us align better with our wishes for the discussion? Which ideas should we discard?
A few more remarks: Reading other posts here sometimes makes me feel guilty because we are “only” building 135 sqm and everything seems so “small.” Still, I want to get the best possible value for my money. Financially, this size is the most reasonable for now.
(PS: And in case the question arises: Why are children only 90% excluded? There are many reasons – for example, difficulties conceiving, but not completely giving up hope.)
Thank you in advance for your opinions.
Reluctance schrieb:
Which “two” calculation arguments are you referring to? I meant that the cost equivalence per square meter across the range of house types—i.e., bungalow, cottage, and “town villa” all treated the same—only applies if the square meter measurement is used appropriately in practice, that is, according to DIN 283 or the German Living Space Ordinance. Therefore, the claim of cost equivalence is inconsistent or even nonsensical if the square meter figure is interpreted as carpet area / DIN 277.
Reluctance schrieb:
I just don’t know. There is no properly defined floor area ratio anywhere. Where none is specified, the maximum national legal limit applies (if I recall correctly, for a bungalow this would be a floor area ratio/building coverage ratio of about 0.8—usually sufficient).
Reluctance schrieb:
although 635 sqm is not exactly the typical lot size for a bungalow. Without fixed maximums for floor area ratio/building coverage ratio, I wouldn’t see any reason to reject it; I consider a 135 sqm (1450 sq ft) bungalow on a 635 sqm (0.16 acres) lot absolutely appropriate. At my place, that would be suitable for a 254 sqm (2730 sq ft) bungalow.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
R
Reluctance26 Feb 2019 07:2411ant schrieb:
I meant that the cost equivalence per square meter across the spectrum of house types—such as bungalows, cottages, and "urban villas"—only holds true if the square meter measurement is applied in a practical way, according to standards like DIN 283 or the German living area regulation. In this respect, claiming cost equivalence while interpreting the square meters based on carpet area or DIN 277 is inconsistent, if not outright absurd.Well, to summarize, the calculation mainly benefits the seller rather than the buyer. Legally, I believe he can do it that way. I don't think I have any legal recourse.
Correct: this is disadvantageous for you, but not immoral, so it is permissible. That’s why Zaba12’s advice to basically turn the tables by choosing a bungalow design, allowing you to gain more living square meters (square feet) while it remains the same number of chargeable square meters (square feet) for him.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Correct: this is disadvantageous for you, but not immoral, so it is allowed. That’s why Zaba12 suggested basically turning the tables with a bungalow, so you get more living square meters while it means the same number of square meters for him Exactly.
A bungalow is more expensive... proportionally more expensive than a two-story townhouse.
So if a bungalow is an option due to limitations on the floor area ratio, just turn the situation around: this way, you won’t be at a disadvantage in terms of net floor area, but you’ll benefit from a bungalow area of a remarkable 135 square meters (1453 square feet) net! You leave the resulting pitched attic unfinished. That attic can later become a huge hobby room if more space is needed, for example, when a child arrives. You only need one shaft for utilities running upwards.
At least, that’s a very smart move that could lead to a checkmate.
I just say: cross-subsidization.
Yes, a proper attic ladder like the one from @Nordlys only takes up just under four square meters (about 43 square feet).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
R
Reluctance26 Feb 2019 15:20That would be really great if the bungalow works out. I hope the "local customary development" doesn’t get in the way or that a floor area ratio doesn’t suddenly come up... but I’m working on that. And if the zoning ordinance introduction says something like: "The character of the area is mainly defined by typical Brandenburg-style houses: small and larger mostly single-story residential buildings, partly with knee walls and cross gables..." then that should basically conform to the character of the area, right?
Similar topics