ᐅ Floor plan design for 170 sqm, pitched roof, 1.5 storeys (1.5 floors)
Created on: 16 Feb 2025 20:46
H
hannes28
Hello dear forum,
We have purchased a plot with an existing building (unfortunately in very poor condition) and plan to build a single-family house after demolition. In recent months, alongside preparations for the demolition, we have been working on plans for our new home, which we will soon present to several local general contractors. We are very interested in your honest opinions on whether our planning seems promising or if we are on the wrong track.
For the design, it is important to us that the ground floor allows for barrier-free living if needed in the future. In terms of layout, we want the house to open primarily towards the large, private garden. The garage of the existing house is currently located in the west corner; we would like to place it in the northeast next to the neighbor’s existing garage.
The existing house to be demolished is fully basemented, though the basement on the driveway side is only about 1.50m (5 feet) deep in the ground due to the sewer depth, and the ground floor is elevated around 1.20m (4 feet). This means there is already a foundation pit after demolition, which could support building with a basement. However, for our new single-family house, we definitely want a barrier-free, level entrance, so a basement would require a deeper pit and, due to the site conditions, a sewage lift station. We will discuss refilling the pit and the associated costs with the excavation contractor in the coming weeks, so there are no concrete figures yet. It might be possible to recycle demolition material on site for backfilling with our excavator. At the moment, we are leaning strongly towards building without a basement, as we prefer utility rooms and a workshop on ground level, and we are quite discouraged by many (including personal) experiences with damp or flooded basements.
Thank you very much for your feedback!
hannes28
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development plan/restrictions: Old zoning plan from the 1960s with relatively few specifications. Only single-story buildings are officially allowed on the lot, but there is currently a house with ground floor plus attic on it, and there are many deviations in the neighborhood. Overall, the municipality is quite open to exceptions.
Plot size: 1100sqm (0.27 acres)
Slope: approximately 45cm (18 inches) downhill across the house width, see site plan
Floor area ratio: /
Gross floor area ratio: /
Building envelope, setback line, and boundary: not further southeast than neighboring developments
Edge development: /
Number of parking spaces: /
Number of stories: according to zoning plan ground floor only, but currently built with ground floor plus attic
Roof form: gable roof
Architectural style: /
Orientation: /
Maximum heights/restrictions: /
Further requirements: /
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof form, building type: traditional style, 1.5 stories, gable roof (current plan: 1m (3 feet) knee wall, 38° pitch), solid masonry construction
Basement, stories: currently tending towards no basement, 1.5 stories
Number of occupants, age: currently 2 × 30 years old, planning for 2–3 children
Room requirements for ground floor and upper floor: Ground floor: kitchen + dining, living room, "flexible room" (home office or barrier-free bedroom), shower bath, utility/technical room; Upper floor: master bedroom with home office corner, 2 children’s rooms, bathroom, possibly storage room
Office: Family use or home office?: 50% home office
Guest overnight stays per year: fewer than 5
Open or closed architecture: rather closed
Conservative or modern building style: rather conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island: preferably open with cooking island, but not a must
Number of dining seats: large table for 6–8 people
Fireplace: rather not
Music / stereo wall: yes for music, TV is not a priority
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage plus adjoining rooms for workshop and garden tools; possibly a carport between garage and house
Vegetable garden, greenhouse: approximately 50sqm (540 square feet) vegetable garden would be perfect
Further wishes / special features / daily routine, also reasons why something should or should not be included
- Living room as a retreat, e.g., for piano playing
- Large dining table is the central place
House design
Who created the plan:
- Do-it-yourself
What do you like particularly? Why?: separated living room (as a retreat & for music); barrier-reduced ground floor, living on one level possible in old age
What do you dislike? Why?: no possibility for a fixed staircase to the attic in case it is developed later; no pantry
Price estimate according to architect/planner: /
Personal budget for the house, including fittings: 750,000 including garage
Preferred heating technology: heat pump, preferably ground-source with underfloor collector
If you had to give up, on which details/expansions
- Could you give up: /
- Could you not give up: possibility for barrier-free living on the ground floor
Why is the design as it is now?
- many iterations of own planning
- orientation of kitchen/dining/living towards the garden
- staircase near the entrance (acoustic separation from living area, possibility to separate upper floor)
- we would like to place the garage on the northeast side, where the neighbor’s garage already stands
- layout not yet fully optimized to the last detail, e.g., exact window positions based on brick work pattern, etc.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad?
Good:
- nice visual axis from entrance to garden
- living room as a separable retreat but still connected to the dining area
Bad:
- still unsure how to practically connect the garage/carport roofing to the house
We have purchased a plot with an existing building (unfortunately in very poor condition) and plan to build a single-family house after demolition. In recent months, alongside preparations for the demolition, we have been working on plans for our new home, which we will soon present to several local general contractors. We are very interested in your honest opinions on whether our planning seems promising or if we are on the wrong track.
For the design, it is important to us that the ground floor allows for barrier-free living if needed in the future. In terms of layout, we want the house to open primarily towards the large, private garden. The garage of the existing house is currently located in the west corner; we would like to place it in the northeast next to the neighbor’s existing garage.
The existing house to be demolished is fully basemented, though the basement on the driveway side is only about 1.50m (5 feet) deep in the ground due to the sewer depth, and the ground floor is elevated around 1.20m (4 feet). This means there is already a foundation pit after demolition, which could support building with a basement. However, for our new single-family house, we definitely want a barrier-free, level entrance, so a basement would require a deeper pit and, due to the site conditions, a sewage lift station. We will discuss refilling the pit and the associated costs with the excavation contractor in the coming weeks, so there are no concrete figures yet. It might be possible to recycle demolition material on site for backfilling with our excavator. At the moment, we are leaning strongly towards building without a basement, as we prefer utility rooms and a workshop on ground level, and we are quite discouraged by many (including personal) experiences with damp or flooded basements.
Thank you very much for your feedback!
hannes28
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development plan/restrictions: Old zoning plan from the 1960s with relatively few specifications. Only single-story buildings are officially allowed on the lot, but there is currently a house with ground floor plus attic on it, and there are many deviations in the neighborhood. Overall, the municipality is quite open to exceptions.
Plot size: 1100sqm (0.27 acres)
Slope: approximately 45cm (18 inches) downhill across the house width, see site plan
Floor area ratio: /
Gross floor area ratio: /
Building envelope, setback line, and boundary: not further southeast than neighboring developments
Edge development: /
Number of parking spaces: /
Number of stories: according to zoning plan ground floor only, but currently built with ground floor plus attic
Roof form: gable roof
Architectural style: /
Orientation: /
Maximum heights/restrictions: /
Further requirements: /
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof form, building type: traditional style, 1.5 stories, gable roof (current plan: 1m (3 feet) knee wall, 38° pitch), solid masonry construction
Basement, stories: currently tending towards no basement, 1.5 stories
Number of occupants, age: currently 2 × 30 years old, planning for 2–3 children
Room requirements for ground floor and upper floor: Ground floor: kitchen + dining, living room, "flexible room" (home office or barrier-free bedroom), shower bath, utility/technical room; Upper floor: master bedroom with home office corner, 2 children’s rooms, bathroom, possibly storage room
Office: Family use or home office?: 50% home office
Guest overnight stays per year: fewer than 5
Open or closed architecture: rather closed
Conservative or modern building style: rather conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island: preferably open with cooking island, but not a must
Number of dining seats: large table for 6–8 people
Fireplace: rather not
Music / stereo wall: yes for music, TV is not a priority
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage plus adjoining rooms for workshop and garden tools; possibly a carport between garage and house
Vegetable garden, greenhouse: approximately 50sqm (540 square feet) vegetable garden would be perfect
Further wishes / special features / daily routine, also reasons why something should or should not be included
- Living room as a retreat, e.g., for piano playing
- Large dining table is the central place
House design
Who created the plan:
- Do-it-yourself
What do you like particularly? Why?: separated living room (as a retreat & for music); barrier-reduced ground floor, living on one level possible in old age
What do you dislike? Why?: no possibility for a fixed staircase to the attic in case it is developed later; no pantry
Price estimate according to architect/planner: /
Personal budget for the house, including fittings: 750,000 including garage
Preferred heating technology: heat pump, preferably ground-source with underfloor collector
If you had to give up, on which details/expansions
- Could you give up: /
- Could you not give up: possibility for barrier-free living on the ground floor
Why is the design as it is now?
- many iterations of own planning
- orientation of kitchen/dining/living towards the garden
- staircase near the entrance (acoustic separation from living area, possibility to separate upper floor)
- we would like to place the garage on the northeast side, where the neighbor’s garage already stands
- layout not yet fully optimized to the last detail, e.g., exact window positions based on brick work pattern, etc.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad?
Good:
- nice visual axis from entrance to garden
- living room as a separable retreat but still connected to the dining area
Bad:
- still unsure how to practically connect the garage/carport roofing to the house
Why are almost all the doors shown with a width of only 88cm (35 inches)?
The deep window, apparently fixed glazing in the dining room, looks nice, but having a dining bench so close to it might not be ideal. I would probably raise the parapet to the height of the backrest, even though I actually prefer the low window glazing as it is.
For the children’s room, I wouldn’t place the bed directly opposite the door; rather, I’d put it in a quiet corner of the room. I actually think having a workspace in the bedroom is inappropriate because you go to bed with a view of your work and see it first thing in the morning. I want to be able to exclude work from my daily routine.
The bathroom is quite large at 11sqm (118 sq ft), but currently, the layout is neither attractive nor practical. Having the door right behind the washbasin is also unpleasant.
The deep window, apparently fixed glazing in the dining room, looks nice, but having a dining bench so close to it might not be ideal. I would probably raise the parapet to the height of the backrest, even though I actually prefer the low window glazing as it is.
For the children’s room, I wouldn’t place the bed directly opposite the door; rather, I’d put it in a quiet corner of the room. I actually think having a workspace in the bedroom is inappropriate because you go to bed with a view of your work and see it first thing in the morning. I want to be able to exclude work from my daily routine.
The bathroom is quite large at 11sqm (118 sq ft), but currently, the layout is neither attractive nor practical. Having the door right behind the washbasin is also unpleasant.
hannes28 schrieb:
The garage of the house to be demolished is currently located in the northwest corner; we would like to move it to the northeast next to the existing neighbor’s garage. Cars are not architectural connoisseurs—they don’t care at all about the wallpaper in the kids’ room. Is it really worth spending over 30,000 (currency unspecified) just to have a car parking spot just as good as before, but in a different location? Millionaires who want to remain millionaires avoid that kind of expense. You could cover more than just the architect’s fees with that amount.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I am only now getting the chance to read your entire post carefully, so here is my more detailed response compared to this morning.
And yes, I also forgot to mention the doors.
The guest toilet will not become accessible by simply making it longer. It is just too narrow. Even for an able-bodied person, furnishing it is already pushing the limits. If someone tries to replicate this as it is, a plumber later might refuse to clear a clog in the toilet because they can’t get between the washbasin and the toilet once the shower partition, as shown, is installed.
If a visitor with broad shoulders comes, they won’t fit in either.
But, starting at the beginning:
You are making a mistake by focusing too much on accessibility or lack thereof.
Yes, you later said you don’t need it now and it’s only for a worst-case scenario, but look at how much it triggers you (from top to bottom in the original post):
Definitely, fundamentally important... but then actually not. At least it doesn’t seem important enough for you to have done any research online.
Great.
I would rather suggest focusing on other scenarios, for example, if a child is sick, how do you help them if they feel unwell in the guest toilet? Or hold the child over the toilet?!
Or if your partner is ill, do you want to disturb their rest by working in the bedroom? I personally wouldn’t tolerate that even if I were healthy.
Personally, I consider a nice room on the ground floor very useful, and a shower downstairs can also come in handy, but I hardly know any layout that gives the shower or the whole room enough space. Instead, three fixtures are squeezed into 4m² (43 sq ft). Here it’s almost 6m² (65 sq ft), but very poorly designed.
Also, the upstairs shower: nicely planned as a walk-in with length, but when you walk out, you face the window. The basin is placed in the dark, and the door is directly behind it.
There are some good ideas, but overall not well executed.
The wardrobe is hardly usable; it is tiny and has no space in front of it. With children around, shoes will end up there, and the guest toilet, which is not accessible, will no longer be easy to enter. Essentially, this is a bottleneck that will not work well when multiple people return home at once.
I think the kitchen size is borderline for 5 people.
The living room is spacious, but a family sofa will neither fit well nor feel cozy.
Windows: there seem to be too many irregular or random sizes and spacing. Sometimes double-leaf, sometimes 150cm (59 inches), sometimes 180cm (71 inches) wide—what will the house façades look like? Windows only 1m (39 inches) high are borderline too small.
If the aspect of accessibility is going to remain a focus, I would recommend ensuring that a lift can be retrofitted to the staircase and that neither a walker nor a rollator would block the way at the bottom or top of the stairs.
hannes28 schrieb:That it is passable but not suitable for turning around.
I completely agree with you about the bathroom, but it could be relatively easily extended to the left around the wardrobe area. Where do you see the issue with the kitchen?
Arauki11 schrieb:
Why are almost all the doors only 88cm (35 inches) wide?
And yes, I also forgot to mention the doors.
The guest toilet will not become accessible by simply making it longer. It is just too narrow. Even for an able-bodied person, furnishing it is already pushing the limits. If someone tries to replicate this as it is, a plumber later might refuse to clear a clog in the toilet because they can’t get between the washbasin and the toilet once the shower partition, as shown, is installed.
If a visitor with broad shoulders comes, they won’t fit in either.
But, starting at the beginning:
You are making a mistake by focusing too much on accessibility or lack thereof.
Yes, you later said you don’t need it now and it’s only for a worst-case scenario, but look at how much it triggers you (from top to bottom in the original post):
hannes28 schrieb:
It’s fundamentally important to be able to live barrier-free on the ground floor in case the need arises.
hannes28 schrieb:
Definitely a barrier-free
hannes28 schrieb:
Barrier-free bedroom
hannes28 schrieb:
Ground floor with few barriers
hannes28 schrieb:
Option to live barrier-free on the ground floor
Definitely, fundamentally important... but then actually not. At least it doesn’t seem important enough for you to have done any research online.
hannes28 schrieb:
Fortunately, we are currently doing very well and don’t need accessibility at this time.
Great.
I would rather suggest focusing on other scenarios, for example, if a child is sick, how do you help them if they feel unwell in the guest toilet? Or hold the child over the toilet?!
Or if your partner is ill, do you want to disturb their rest by working in the bedroom? I personally wouldn’t tolerate that even if I were healthy.
Personally, I consider a nice room on the ground floor very useful, and a shower downstairs can also come in handy, but I hardly know any layout that gives the shower or the whole room enough space. Instead, three fixtures are squeezed into 4m² (43 sq ft). Here it’s almost 6m² (65 sq ft), but very poorly designed.
Also, the upstairs shower: nicely planned as a walk-in with length, but when you walk out, you face the window. The basin is placed in the dark, and the door is directly behind it.
There are some good ideas, but overall not well executed.
The wardrobe is hardly usable; it is tiny and has no space in front of it. With children around, shoes will end up there, and the guest toilet, which is not accessible, will no longer be easy to enter. Essentially, this is a bottleneck that will not work well when multiple people return home at once.
I think the kitchen size is borderline for 5 people.
The living room is spacious, but a family sofa will neither fit well nor feel cozy.
Windows: there seem to be too many irregular or random sizes and spacing. Sometimes double-leaf, sometimes 150cm (59 inches), sometimes 180cm (71 inches) wide—what will the house façades look like? Windows only 1m (39 inches) high are borderline too small.
If the aspect of accessibility is going to remain a focus, I would recommend ensuring that a lift can be retrofitted to the staircase and that neither a walker nor a rollator would block the way at the bottom or top of the stairs.
W
wiltshire17 Feb 2025 22:32I have the impression that "barrier-free" and "accessible for people with disabilities" are sometimes confused. The option to have a fully functional living unit without any stairs seems to be the main focus of this design.
Given your requirements, a different house shape would be more consistent—such as an L-shaped layout where communal and private spaces are separated into two wings. This way, bedrooms and a larger bathroom can be located on the ground floor. Above one part, the attic floor could be used for the children’s rooms.
Whether you are allowed to build like this? No idea.
Given your requirements, a different house shape would be more consistent—such as an L-shaped layout where communal and private spaces are separated into two wings. This way, bedrooms and a larger bathroom can be located on the ground floor. Above one part, the attic floor could be used for the children’s rooms.
Whether you are allowed to build like this? No idea.
Hello everyone,
thank you very much for your honest feedback on our floor plan. With your input, we will revise and adjust our design in the coming days.
Unfortunately, the garage is as dilapidated as the demolition house itself, so it probably isn’t worth investing more money in it. We will reconsider the positioning. If it stays in the west corner as it currently is, you always have a very long straight driveway, meaning you must reverse along the entire way to the street. In my opinion, that is no better than needing some maneuvering space with a garage positioned in the northeast of the yard.
Rotating the house has crossed our minds as well. The trade-off is whether I want the long side facing the beautiful, unobstructed garden or instead have the afternoon sun in the southwest…
The issue currently occupying us the most is what to do with the basement during and after the demolition. The existing ground floor of the house to be demolished is a raised ground floor with seven steps leading up. We would like to build as close to ground level as possible so that we can easily connect a terrace to the house in the garden (whether we build with or without a basement). With a height difference of 40cm (16 inches) between the driveway and the garden, this should be feasible by slightly filling in the terrain. At 40cm (16 inches) difference, we are also at the lower end of @11ant’s basement rule, which tends to favor building without a basement. There is also space on the property for basement substitute rooms. Now comes the problem of the “insufficiently deep” excavation pit after demolition: We estimate the pit will be about 1.70m (5 ft 7 in) deep on the driveway side and about 1.30m (4 ft 3 in) on the garden side. For a slab-on-grade build, we would need to fill about one meter (3 ft 3 in) first; for a basement build, we would have to dig about one meter (3 ft 3 in) deeper. We could probably recycle the demolition material directly for filling. Do any of you, or anyone in the forum, have experience with what was more economically reasonable in similar cases?
Thank you very much in advance for your opinions
Hannes
thank you very much for your honest feedback on our floor plan. With your input, we will revise and adjust our design in the coming days.
11ant schrieb:
Cars are not architecture connoisseurs; they don’t care about the wallpaper in the kids’ room. Usually spending over 30,000 (currency) on making a car “bed” as good as the previous one in another corner? Millionaires who want to stay millionaires tend to avoid that. You could pay for more than just the architect’s fee with that.
ypg schrieb:
P.S. I see the garage where it is now. If planned differently, you’d have to maneuver to get in.
Unfortunately, the garage is as dilapidated as the demolition house itself, so it probably isn’t worth investing more money in it. We will reconsider the positioning. If it stays in the west corner as it currently is, you always have a very long straight driveway, meaning you must reverse along the entire way to the street. In my opinion, that is no better than needing some maneuvering space with a garage positioned in the northeast of the yard.
ypg schrieb:
I would rotate the house footprint (without judging the floor plan).
Rotating the house has crossed our minds as well. The trade-off is whether I want the long side facing the beautiful, unobstructed garden or instead have the afternoon sun in the southwest…
The issue currently occupying us the most is what to do with the basement during and after the demolition. The existing ground floor of the house to be demolished is a raised ground floor with seven steps leading up. We would like to build as close to ground level as possible so that we can easily connect a terrace to the house in the garden (whether we build with or without a basement). With a height difference of 40cm (16 inches) between the driveway and the garden, this should be feasible by slightly filling in the terrain. At 40cm (16 inches) difference, we are also at the lower end of @11ant’s basement rule, which tends to favor building without a basement. There is also space on the property for basement substitute rooms. Now comes the problem of the “insufficiently deep” excavation pit after demolition: We estimate the pit will be about 1.70m (5 ft 7 in) deep on the driveway side and about 1.30m (4 ft 3 in) on the garden side. For a slab-on-grade build, we would need to fill about one meter (3 ft 3 in) first; for a basement build, we would have to dig about one meter (3 ft 3 in) deeper. We could probably recycle the demolition material directly for filling. Do any of you, or anyone in the forum, have experience with what was more economically reasonable in similar cases?
Thank you very much in advance for your opinions
Hannes
Similar topics