Hello,
we have given it some further thought, and attached is the preliminary draft. It was inspired, among other things, by the Viebrockhaus 425. We have a specified height requirement from the OKEGFF and therefore need to build significantly above the natural terrain. A basement makes sense, also visually, so there isn’t a huge embankment. Mainly, we are considering whether the office is large enough (enough space to move around comfortably and not feel cramped) and whether the living area is spacious enough (to accommodate more than 2–3 people or, for example, currently so that friends can gather to watch football matches).
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 600 sqm (about 6458 sq ft)
Slope: North-South about 2–3% (south side higher); East-West about 7% (west side higher); North-South will be leveled by earthworks; East-West needs to be balanced because building height is fixed
Site occupancy factor: 0.35
Number of parking spaces: 2 spaces (for now, some gravel will be added, possibly a garage later)
Number of floors: 2 full floors
Roof type: gable roof or hipped roof with ridge (in our case: hipped roof)
Orientation: garden facing south/southwest
Maximum heights / limits: 6.30 m (20.7 ft) eave height from OKEGFF
Owner Requirements
Number of people, age: 2 adults + 2 children
Room needs on ground floor and upper floor: office on the ground floor
Office: space for PC and documents; used often but not always for productive work
Overnight guests per year: a few, possibly
Fireplace: undecided; visually, it would fit well in the upper right corner of the plan
Other wishes: office connected to living room
House Design
Who designed it:
- Do-it-Yourself
What do you especially like?: The kitchen is great, dining area with a large window and garden view is excellent; two large, equally sized children’s rooms; sufficient wardrobe space, pantry, lots of storage space in the basement for our stuff, bathroom is spacious, bedroom big with about 4 meters (13 ft) space for built-in wardrobes; second shower
What don’t you like?: Half-turned staircase instead of a straight or landing staircase; office possibly a bit small; living room possibly a bit small, and from the seats further right on the sofa, the kitchen is visible
If you have to give up details or features:
- can give up: pantry; size of children’s rooms; open space above the entrance
- cannot give up: everything else
Floor plan:
View without basement:
we have given it some further thought, and attached is the preliminary draft. It was inspired, among other things, by the Viebrockhaus 425. We have a specified height requirement from the OKEGFF and therefore need to build significantly above the natural terrain. A basement makes sense, also visually, so there isn’t a huge embankment. Mainly, we are considering whether the office is large enough (enough space to move around comfortably and not feel cramped) and whether the living area is spacious enough (to accommodate more than 2–3 people or, for example, currently so that friends can gather to watch football matches).
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 600 sqm (about 6458 sq ft)
Slope: North-South about 2–3% (south side higher); East-West about 7% (west side higher); North-South will be leveled by earthworks; East-West needs to be balanced because building height is fixed
Site occupancy factor: 0.35
Number of parking spaces: 2 spaces (for now, some gravel will be added, possibly a garage later)
Number of floors: 2 full floors
Roof type: gable roof or hipped roof with ridge (in our case: hipped roof)
Orientation: garden facing south/southwest
Maximum heights / limits: 6.30 m (20.7 ft) eave height from OKEGFF
Owner Requirements
Number of people, age: 2 adults + 2 children
Room needs on ground floor and upper floor: office on the ground floor
Office: space for PC and documents; used often but not always for productive work
Overnight guests per year: a few, possibly
Fireplace: undecided; visually, it would fit well in the upper right corner of the plan
Other wishes: office connected to living room
House Design
Who designed it:
- Do-it-Yourself
What do you especially like?: The kitchen is great, dining area with a large window and garden view is excellent; two large, equally sized children’s rooms; sufficient wardrobe space, pantry, lots of storage space in the basement for our stuff, bathroom is spacious, bedroom big with about 4 meters (13 ft) space for built-in wardrobes; second shower
What don’t you like?: Half-turned staircase instead of a straight or landing staircase; office possibly a bit small; living room possibly a bit small, and from the seats further right on the sofa, the kitchen is visible
If you have to give up details or features:
- can give up: pantry; size of children’s rooms; open space above the entrance
- cannot give up: everything else
Floor plan:
View without basement:
Clearly a blend of the classic Edition 425 and the modern 425 from Viebrockhaus. So it shouldn’t be surprising if it is many times better than your previous creative versions 🙂 This is also partly because with about 190 m² (2,045 ft²) plus a finished basement, there is naturally more "design freedom" than with 150 m² (1,615 ft²) without a basement.
The wall solutions between the hallway, pantry, kitchen, and dining area could be handled more elegantly. If I have time over the weekend, I’ll sketch something for that.
And regarding design freedom: I have to agree with Kerstin... After all, it’s still a catalog house from Viebrockhaus, which doesn’t see the need to conveniently include a small utility room on the upper floor.
The elevations are not appealing—they don’t look as elegant with an amateurish program as the originals do.
I would pay attention to not choosing the knee-wall windows too small. Also, keep in mind that urban villas—meaning two-story houses without front or rear setbacks finished with plaster—simply look bulky.
The wall solutions between the hallway, pantry, kitchen, and dining area could be handled more elegantly. If I have time over the weekend, I’ll sketch something for that.
And regarding design freedom: I have to agree with Kerstin... After all, it’s still a catalog house from Viebrockhaus, which doesn’t see the need to conveniently include a small utility room on the upper floor.
The elevations are not appealing—they don’t look as elegant with an amateurish program as the originals do.
I would pay attention to not choosing the knee-wall windows too small. Also, keep in mind that urban villas—meaning two-story houses without front or rear setbacks finished with plaster—simply look bulky.
We have a 2.3m (7 ft 7 in) wall and a 75-inch hanging, the wall shouldn’t be much smaller than that.
The window arrangement is awful; only one side has any system or order. I should have paid more attention to that in our case too, but it’s nowhere near as bad as yours.
I think the upper floor is okay, although a small storage area would be better.
The ground floor entrance is too complicated.
The window arrangement is awful; only one side has any system or order. I should have paid more attention to that in our case too, but it’s nowhere near as bad as yours.
I think the upper floor is okay, although a small storage area would be better.
The ground floor entrance is too complicated.
Hello,
I’m not sure how many attempts this is from you. You really should consult someone who knows about this (an architect) and at least commission design phases 1-4. This will save you a lot of money in the end because the house would probably become smaller through better planning!
This looks quite “haphazardly” sketched together, without optimization.
I also find the proportions don’t make sense: a 3 x 120 m² (1290 sq ft) house (2 floors plus basement) is being squeezed onto a 600 m² (6500 sq ft) “tiny” lot. How much would an extra 200 m² (2150 sq ft) of land have cost compared to 10–20 m² (110–215 sq ft) less living space?
Best regards,
Barossi
I’m not sure how many attempts this is from you. You really should consult someone who knows about this (an architect) and at least commission design phases 1-4. This will save you a lot of money in the end because the house would probably become smaller through better planning!
This looks quite “haphazardly” sketched together, without optimization.
I also find the proportions don’t make sense: a 3 x 120 m² (1290 sq ft) house (2 floors plus basement) is being squeezed onto a 600 m² (6500 sq ft) “tiny” lot. How much would an extra 200 m² (2150 sq ft) of land have cost compared to 10–20 m² (110–215 sq ft) less living space?
Best regards,
Barossi
kbt09 schrieb:
What I find lacking in terms of size is, for example, a proper storage room upstairs for vacuum cleaners/mops, etc. Do you all have multiple vacuum cleaners? One per floor? We could store the vacuum cleaner and cleaning supplies in the pantry.
Also, a central storage space there for bedding/towels, toilet paper stock, etc. There should be space for that in the bathroom, for example in the cabinet behind the door.
And given the size, one should also consider at least a possible spot upstairs for a washer/dryer. Carrying everything from the top to the bottom (especially with very small children) might be a bit impractical. Yes, but that requires quite a bit of space for pre-sorting with various piles and 2-3 drying racks. That’s why we now have about 10 sqm (110 sq ft) in the basement.
You should also reconsider the children’s bedroom windows. Okay.
Bathroom upstairs… rethink the window so the shower can be a bit bigger. 100 cm (39 inches) wide and 120 cm (47 inches) deep. What dimensions would you recommend?
For the living room, possibly integrate the workspace more towards the top right in the “semi-public” area, dissolve the living room, and place the couch area fully at the bottom right of the plan. That way, you could possibly have more or larger windows facing west. West side is already allocated for parking spaces, possibly a garage later, so no windows there. We want the workspace integrated but also want to be able to quickly shove some clutter aside, close the door, and have everything tidy. This wouldn’t be possible with the workspace fully open at the top right.
The kitchen is spacious, although 130 cm (51 inches) between the counters is actually too much. About 110 cm (43 inches) would be sufficient for efficient workflow. Our kitchen planner recommended 120 cm (47 inches). The current 130 cm (51 inches) is because there needs to be a terrace door in between. We need to review that in more detail.
Please share the site plan, ideally including neighboring plots and street layout. Parking spaces/garages are planned on the west side? Two parking spaces on the west side, yes.
ypg schrieb:
It’s clearly a mix of the classic Edition 425 and the modern 425 from Viebrockhaus. So it shouldn’t be surprising if it’s much better than your former creative designs 🙂 Also, with around 190 sqm (2,045 sq ft) plus a finished basement, naturally there’s more “design freedom” than with 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft) without a basement. The wall solutions between the entrance hall, pantry, kitchen, and dining area could be made more elegant. If I have time this weekend, I’ll sketch something. That would be great, thanks.
The elevations don’t look good – using an amateur program, of course, means they don’t look as elegant as the originals. I’d pay attention to not making the knee wall windows too small. Also keep in mind that contemporary townhouses, i.e., two-story buildings without projections in plaster, just look bulky. Yes, there’s definitely room for optimization. We might also use a second plaster color.
tomtom79 schrieb:
We have a 2.3 m (7.5 ft) wall with a 75-inch TV mounted; the wall shouldn’t be any smaller. I just compared sizes of various TVs on Amazon. At the moment we only have a 42-inch TV.
The window arrangement is terrible – only one side is systematic and orderly. I should have paid more attention too, but it’s nowhere near as bad as yours. I think the west side is okay since parking spaces will be there. The north and east sides (east including the basement windows) still need some work.
The ground floor entrance feels too complicated. You think so? When you enter, the door to the living area is directly straight ahead.
Barossi schrieb:
The proportions don’t fit: They’re squeezing a 3 x 120 sqm (1,290 sq ft) house onto a tiny 600 sqm (6,450 sq ft) plot (2 floors plus basement). What would 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) more land have cost? Compared to 10-20 sqm (110-215 sq ft) less living space? The plot is more than large enough. Smaller would have been fine too. We chose solely based on the location in the development, not size. 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) more would have cost about 40,000 EUR. But that didn’t matter. Why would I need more lawn? There is plenty of space for the house, parking spots, terrace, and enough lawn for playing. I don’t quite understand that comment. A 112 sqm (1,205 sq ft) footprint is not huge; houses of this size or larger are often built on much smaller plots. Some in this development even build bigger (e.g., 13.6 m x 11.2 m (45 ft x 37 ft)).
It is really inconvenient to carry a vacuum cleaner from the pantry corner up to the upper floor to clean, and then back again. I only have one floor, but if I had two, I would definitely have a vacuum cleaner, mop, and bucket on each floor. For example, to quickly mop the bathroom or vacuum up hair and similar tasks. Such a small storage space could be installed without altering other rooms by sacrificing the gallery area on the upper floor at the bottom of the plan. You could even allocate space for a washing machine there... even without a 10m² (108 sq ft) sorting room.
Bathroom: you have placed the shower area by the window at approximately 100x120cm (40x47 inches).
For storing bedding, towels, toilet paper, shampoo, etc., I would prefer a space in the hallway rather than in the bathroom.
To prevent any kind of clutter at the desk area, cabinets with doors really help.
Bathroom: you have placed the shower area by the window at approximately 100x120cm (40x47 inches).
For storing bedding, towels, toilet paper, shampoo, etc., I would prefer a space in the hallway rather than in the bathroom.
To prevent any kind of clutter at the desk area, cabinets with doors really help.
Barossi schrieb:
I also think the proportions don’t add up: A 3x120sqm (2,580 sq ft) house (2 floors plus basement) is being squeezed onto a 600sqm (6,460 sq ft) “tiny” lot. How much would 200sqm (2,150 sq ft) more land have cost compared to 10-20sqm (110-215 sq ft) less living space?
Regards, BarossiIt’s all relative. Here, the price per square meter for building land ranges from 300 to well over 500 euros. Building plots in new development areas are often under 400sqm (4,300 sq ft), yet large urban villas are built there. I find 600sqm (6,460 sq ft) quite generous, definitely not small.
Best regards,
Sabine
Similar topics