ᐅ Floor plan of a 200 m² single-family house, raised ground floor, existing plot, double garage
Created on: 6 Feb 2025 23:45
G
Gustav5789
Dear collective wisdom,
We would like to build our single-family home on the parents-in-law’s property. The target is about 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) with a double garage. Our architect is very creative, which we find somewhat unsettling, so I’m seeking advice here.
Plot size: 1200 m² (13,000 sq ft), our portion will be approximately 550 m² (5,920 sq ft) in the future
No slope present → farmland (1549) but lies 1 m (3 ft) below the plot
Floor area ratio unknown
Site coverage ratio unknown
Building envelope, building line, and boundary unknown
Surrounding development unknown
Number of parking spaces: 1.5
Number of floors: 2
Roof shape: no specifications
Architectural style: no specifications
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum height/restrictions unknown
Other conditions
Existing setback areas must be reapplied for
Owner requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Classic single-family home with a pitched roof
Basement, floors
No basement, two full floors
Number of people, ages
5 people, 33, 31, 2, 0 (planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office:
Home office P1 4 days + P2 2 days
Guest bedrooms per year
None
Open or closed layout
Open
Conservative or modern construction
Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island
Open kitchen, U-shaped
Number of dining seats
Minimum 8, ideally 10
Fireplace
Wood stove (optional)
Music / stereo wall
Stereo wall (optional)
Balcony, roof terrace
No balcony, roof terrace (optional)
Garage, carport
Double garage, extra wide/deep (7.5 x 9 m (25 x 30 ft))
Utility garden, greenhouse
Utility garden
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences
Due to flooding events, the house should be built 1 m (3 ft) above ground level; garages may remain at ground level
Existing building requires more parking than the existing double garage, at least 3 spaces
Garages on the east side because parcel 1560/6 has a continuous 10–12 m (33–39 ft) tall tree/bush line on the boundary
House design
Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Ground floor: Open living and dining area; kitchen is directly integrated into life at the table
Ground floor: Pantry between work area and kitchen serves as an acoustic buffer
What do you dislike? Why?
Ground floor: TV with stereo should ideally face the table to fill the whole room with sound
Upper floor: Too convoluted; children’s rooms are under 15 m² (160 sq ft)
Upper floor: No space for drying/ironing laundry
Garage: Technical room would be flooded during high water
Estimated cost according to architect/planner:
750,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump
If you have to forego, which details or features could you do without?
- Roof terrace
- KfW 40 standard (energy efficiency standard)
- Wood stove
- Large garage
- Utility garden
- 15 m² (160 sq ft) per child’s room
Which features are indispensable?
- Three children’s bedrooms
- Home office
- Open living area
- Second bathroom
Why is the design as it is now?
A mix of many examples, trying to save square meters and fit everything into 180 m² (1,940 sq ft), but now we are happy to build larger since permission up to 272 m² (2,930 sq ft) was approved.
What wishes were fulfilled by the architect? None yet; he has only provided proposals we don’t necessarily like.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?
We like the ground floor layout; technical areas cause little noise inside as they are separated.
Original: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kombination-massivhaus-vs-holzrahmenbau.48745/
The plot plan originally anticipated reusing existing prefabricated garages; however, these have been sold, so we have a free hand.
We would like to build our single-family home on the parents-in-law’s property. The target is about 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) with a double garage. Our architect is very creative, which we find somewhat unsettling, so I’m seeking advice here.
Plot size: 1200 m² (13,000 sq ft), our portion will be approximately 550 m² (5,920 sq ft) in the future
No slope present → farmland (1549) but lies 1 m (3 ft) below the plot
Floor area ratio unknown
Site coverage ratio unknown
Building envelope, building line, and boundary unknown
Surrounding development unknown
Number of parking spaces: 1.5
Number of floors: 2
Roof shape: no specifications
Architectural style: no specifications
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum height/restrictions unknown
Other conditions
Existing setback areas must be reapplied for
Owner requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Classic single-family home with a pitched roof
Basement, floors
No basement, two full floors
Number of people, ages
5 people, 33, 31, 2, 0 (planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office:
Home office P1 4 days + P2 2 days
Guest bedrooms per year
None
Open or closed layout
Open
Conservative or modern construction
Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island
Open kitchen, U-shaped
Number of dining seats
Minimum 8, ideally 10
Fireplace
Wood stove (optional)
Music / stereo wall
Stereo wall (optional)
Balcony, roof terrace
No balcony, roof terrace (optional)
Garage, carport
Double garage, extra wide/deep (7.5 x 9 m (25 x 30 ft))
Utility garden, greenhouse
Utility garden
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences
Due to flooding events, the house should be built 1 m (3 ft) above ground level; garages may remain at ground level
Existing building requires more parking than the existing double garage, at least 3 spaces
Garages on the east side because parcel 1560/6 has a continuous 10–12 m (33–39 ft) tall tree/bush line on the boundary
House design
Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Ground floor: Open living and dining area; kitchen is directly integrated into life at the table
Ground floor: Pantry between work area and kitchen serves as an acoustic buffer
What do you dislike? Why?
Ground floor: TV with stereo should ideally face the table to fill the whole room with sound
Upper floor: Too convoluted; children’s rooms are under 15 m² (160 sq ft)
Upper floor: No space for drying/ironing laundry
Garage: Technical room would be flooded during high water
Estimated cost according to architect/planner:
750,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump
If you have to forego, which details or features could you do without?
- Roof terrace
- KfW 40 standard (energy efficiency standard)
- Wood stove
- Large garage
- Utility garden
- 15 m² (160 sq ft) per child’s room
Which features are indispensable?
- Three children’s bedrooms
- Home office
- Open living area
- Second bathroom
Why is the design as it is now?
A mix of many examples, trying to save square meters and fit everything into 180 m² (1,940 sq ft), but now we are happy to build larger since permission up to 272 m² (2,930 sq ft) was approved.
What wishes were fulfilled by the architect? None yet; he has only provided proposals we don’t necessarily like.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?
We like the ground floor layout; technical areas cause little noise inside as they are separated.
Original: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kombination-massivhaus-vs-holzrahmenbau.48745/
The plot plan originally anticipated reusing existing prefabricated garages; however, these have been sold, so we have a free hand.
G
Gustav57896 Mar 2025 23:31One question still came to mind, which the architect answered, but I no longer fully trust him. He designs load-bearing walls with a thickness of 24cm (9.5 inches) and all others at 11cm (4.3 inches). Allegedly, this is completely normal... But with 11cm (4.3 inches) walls made of hollow bricks between the children's rooms, wouldn’t you hear everything and everyone? What should be planned here to ensure a reasonable level of sound insulation?
Gustav5789 schrieb:
I suspect it failed because of that, which is why he went for two full stories.No, in my opinion, that’s not the reason. The landing staircase would work. However, it does take up a bit more space, which makes everything feel a little tighter again. The reason is probably the budget.
Or who said this:
Gustav5789 schrieb:
…that he now chose a 36.5 cm (14.4 inches) exterior wall, we have to save money, otherwise the house will be too expensive.What that has to do with the exterior wall is beyond me.Gustav5789 schrieb:
But with 11cm (4.3 inches) between the children's rooms made of perforated brick, don't you hear everything and everyone? What would you need to plan here to make it reasonably quiet?One of the quietest types of blocks, as far as I know, is sand-lime brick. However, it has poor insulation properties. Some people use this type of brick inside and a different material on the outside. Whether and how that works, I have no experience with.G
Gustav57897 Mar 2025 09:58K a t j a schrieb:
No, in my opinion, that’s not the reason. The landing staircase would work. However, it takes up a bit more space, which makes everything feel a bit tighter again.
The reason is probably the budget.
Or who said that:
What that has to do with the exterior wall, I really don’t understand. The architect said that. Our construction manager and two general contractors said the price is completely reasonable. But our artist disagrees.
Yes, we lose living space due to the thick bricks; the house would need to be bigger, and that costs too much for the benefit it doesn’t provide.
K a t j a schrieb:
For 750K, the third floor should easily be possible, or at least a comfortable 200 square meters. Have you even asked alternative builders? The general contractor said we would come out at 650K.
Another said more like 600K, depending on the finishings.
K a t j a schrieb:
One of the quietest types of bricks, as far as I know, is calcium silicate brick. However, it has poor insulation. That’s why some use this brick on the inside and something else on the outside. But I have no experience with whether or how this works. Talk to the construction manager about whether he offers that for the interior construction. But 11.5cm (4.5 inches) walls are standard, right?
Gustav5789 schrieb:
He decided to go with a 36.5cm (14.3 inches) exterior wall because we need to save money; otherwise, the house would be too expensive. He even managed to fit everything into two stories, so we don’t need the attic at all, and if this works for us now, he would finalize it. K a t j a schrieb:
I don’t really see what this has to do with the exterior wall. The architect no longer ‘smokes’ the chemtrails since he discovered them in liquid form. Now he drinks them as energy drinks.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
Yes, we lose living space because of the thick bricks. He would have to make the house larger, but that costs too much for no real added benefit. There must be some other substances involved in Malmsheimer’s sense.
I don’t have the time or energy to go back through the thread right now, but I suspect I have already at least hinted at doubts about this architect’s competence somewhere. What he’s coming up with just doesn’t make sense. Thus, it’s hard to engage with it on a factual or argumentative level.
K a t j a schrieb:
As far as I know, one of the quietest building materials is calcium silicate brick. However, it has poor insulation properties. Some people use this brick inside and something different on the outside. I don’t have experience with how well that works. It works so well that the corporation owning the two allegedly competing market leaders for aerated concrete blocks and the market leader for calcium silicate bricks has bought this combination of companies. Customers love it and many firmly believe that nothing insulates sound better than a highly dense (= heavy) brick. Expansion joints are recommended at the corners where the calcium silicate walls meet the aerated concrete walls.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
Talk to the general contractor about whether they offer that for interior fittings. But 11.5cm (4.5 inches) walls are standard, right? “Interior fittings” is a completely different matter. Non-load-bearing interior walls are nowadays a separate step, often completed by different contractors. 11.5cm (4.5 inches) walls are a popular standard choice among many planners—regardless of whether they make sense where they are drawn. What puzzled me more were the uniformly 24cm (9.4 inches) thick load-bearing interior walls. Those usually indicate an older architect, but then he should also be familiar with the octameter module. At this point, the system was the same under socialist or imperial measurements. I just can’t figure out this guy. However, I am not providing consulting services here and only replied today because some notification must have triggered me to resubscribe to this thread.
Switch to a competent architect (and browse these threads on interior wall soundproofing—everything has already been discussed in detail).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics