ᐅ Floor plan design for a single-family house including basement and double garage

Created on: 16 Mar 2026 19:52

Hello everyone,
I’m new here and would like to briefly introduce myself and especially the construction project in Franconia / Bavaria: We originally planned to start in 2022, but due to unexpected changes in my family situation, I put the project on hold. The plot was / is already owned by us (with an older building still standing – it still needs to be demolished), but the timing wasn’t right.
Now we are entering the second phase, and all signals are “green.”
The current floor plan was created back then; since then, we’ve had some minor change requests and questions, which I have added below. But first, some basic data about the floor plans (including basement).

Zoning plan / restrictions
Plot size: 676m² (rectangular, approx. 26m wide and 26m long (86ft by 86ft))
Slope: none, completely flat
Site occupancy ratio (floor area ratio): 0.4
Plot ratio (floor space index): 0.8
Building envelope, building line and boundary: A front garden area of 5.00m (16ft) depth is defined that must remain free of construction; the building envelope starts from this 5-meter line and extends over the rear parts of the plot. The building envelope covers most of the plot’s width, but setback distances to the side plot boundaries (usually open construction, 3m / 10ft) must be maintained.
Edge construction: As far as I can see, permitted for trash storage shed, garage, and bike shelter
Number of parking spaces: space for 2 cars planned
Number of floors allowed: 2 full storeys allowed
Roof type: Gable roof with a pitch between 20° and 35°
Design style: no specific requirements
Orientation: no specific requirements
Maximum heights / limits: Knee wall max 0.5m (1.6ft) measured from the top edge of the structural ceiling of the attic floor to where the exterior wall meets the roof covering; eaves height max 7.5m (25ft)

Additional requirements: roof extensions are allowed
Client requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: Gable roof house with relatively shallow roof slope, planned as a prefab house.
Basement, floors: basement planned; plus ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF)
Number and age of occupants: 4 people (two adults around 45 years old, children aged 7 and 13)
Room requirements on GF, UF: GF --> living-dining area, guest toilet including small shower – ideally barrier-free, office (frequently used), small pantry (directly connected to kitchen), UF --> bathroom, 2 children's rooms, 1 bedroom with small walk-in closet, possibly small storage room, possibly small second workspace for occasional remote working by both adults (can usually be avoided).
Guest overnight stays per year: very few --> no guest room needed or could be solved with sofa bed in the office.
Open or closed architecture: GF rather open, UF rather closed
Conservative or modern construction: likely more conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen with kitchen island, accessible from both sides.
Number of dining seats: dining table for 6 people
Fireplace: no (or optional)
Music / stereo system: flat-screen TV mounted on the wall in the living area
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage for two cars, with trash shed and bike shelter desired at the edge of the plot (but less urgent)
Utility garden, greenhouse: not planned
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, also explanations why certain things should or should not be: The desire is for a classic single-family home for a family of four with a permanent home office. Designed pragmatically, not fancy or architecturally elaborate. The house should be built as a “climate-friendly new construction.”

About the house design
Who is the designer?
Initial design by an independent architect based on our sketch
What do you particularly like? Why?

Most of our basic concept and wishes have been implemented and, in our opinion, successfully
Well-balanced room layout on the upper floor

What don’t you like? Why?

For cost reasons, we might reduce to approximately 150m² (1615 sq ft) because the room sizes overall seem quite generous
We would no longer want a granny flat; the basement should be purely utility space, not living space
Are windows really necessary in the basement?
The guest toilet on the ground floor should be barrier-free
The glass façades in the living area on the ground floor are too large for us: this increases costs and limits usable space for placing the sofa – which would have to be right in front of the glass façade, not ideal from our point of view
The section shows we originally wanted an open sloped ceiling; since this was described by many prefab house providers in early talks as a “major cost driver,” we would waive it (which would mean the roof windows would also be omitted)

Price estimate from architect / planner: no estimate yet
Personal price limit for the house including fittings: 750,000€ (house incl. basement, ancillary costs, kitchen, garage, driveway/terrace; demolition of the existing building is calculated separately)
Preferred heating system: heat pump

If you have to compromise, on which details / expansions?

Can do without: granny flat, open sloped ceiling, large glass fronts on the ground floor, overall floor area can be smaller
Cannot do without: basement, kitchen island

Why is the design as it is?
We thought about room use in this family setup including home office needs, but we are not professionals. It is not something extravagant, just pragmatic.

Final comments
We appreciate honest assessments, tips, and constructive criticism – if we’ve missed important information, we’ll happily provide it. We plan to have the construction supervised by a prefab house expert, since we are complete novices regarding building inspections.
A heartfelt thanks in advance for your time and valuable feedback on our floor plan.
Minerva121

RomeoZwo17 Mar 2026 20:00

#13

Minerva121 schrieb:
takes up space for the sofa – which we would have to place directly in front of the glass wall

I will never understand why architects like to place sofas in front of a glass wall only to have people staring into the dark void of the room. Windows are meant for looking outside, aren’t they? There are always ways to place the sofa so you can either look outside or watch TV. For example, here you could partially build out the south wall—ideally placing the corner there—so the sofa can look through the west and south windows into the garden.

11ant17 Mar 2026 20:21

#14

Minerva121 schrieb:
I don’t quite understand why a basement would only make sense on a sloped site – but maybe I misinterpreted the comment. For clarification: This is the architect’s design, which he created based on our ideas (“brought-in design”). At that time, we were still planning a solid construction method, but we have since moved away from that approach for various reasons (shorter construction time, apparently better cost control due to fixed prices, easier achievement of energy efficiency, less coordination effort with trades).

Without a sloped site, there is no slope-related basement effort that you would partly pay for by solving the issue with a traditional basement. The role of the basement has changed over time and cannot be compared to the days when Chancellors were still named Helmut: back then, raised ground floors were built on stilts, but today, “floor-to-ceiling” ground floors are common. Younger generations nowadays have to look up the term “Weckglas” (preserving jar). Laundry drying is often no longer done on clotheslines, and nowadays no one uses the basement for parties anymore. On a flat site, excavating a pit below the ground floor just for the house connection room and temporary storage of bulky waste usually means “all cost, no benefit.”

A good architect plans construction methods neutrally, since only during the “rising time” phase of the process is it revealed whether there is any real reason to choose wood or masonry (terms like “prefabricated” or “solid” are just as meaningless as assuming “Lemon butterfly” is a professional title). Whether the EH40 standard is worthwhile is often questionable – and it is almost only in that case that timber frame panel houses have the edge. Prefabricating wall panels only appears to save time; in reality, fully site-built houses are equally efficient.

Minerva121 schrieb:
I would like to follow up with you: Would you say that solid construction houses have clear advantages over prefabricated houses? Individualization level, higher perceived value/robustness are now also attributed to (some) prefabricated house providers – as well as stable wall construction / “vapor permeability.”

Overdoing “made to measure” to “centimeter accuracy” is basically not a value in itself. An economical modular grid step in timber construction is 80cm (31.5 inches), and in masonry construction is 75cm (29.5 inches). During preliminary design, it’s best to work with whole and half decimeters, then round or smooth out based on the construction method decision (which should not be predetermined but made during the “rising time” phase) in small increments. Masonry construction allows finer resolution with one-eighth meters (12.5cm (5 inches)) increments than timber frame panel construction with one-quarter or one-third of twenty eighth-meter steps. The structural strengths are fully comparable. A predetermined decision is thus just as questionable for or against, and essentially meaningless.

Minerva121 schrieb:
Do you see any planning or other inconsistencies beyond the decision for a prefabricated house – or have these already been addressed by others?

The biggest planning inconsistency – which also prevents me from criticizing this specific design at all – lies in our ignorance about its development. You started this thread as a complete newbie, so we know nothing about the planning history from 2022. One can mainly say that various price increases have occurred since then – what cost-saving strategies have been pursued to compensate for the reduced purchasing power of the budget (building smaller and/or simpler), or has any inheritance, lottery win, or career-related salary increase meanwhile been secured?

Discussing an unrealistic dream home makes no sense for you or fun for the community.

Minerva121 schrieb:
For clarification: This is the architect’s design, which he created based on our ideas (“brought-in design”).

Hopefully, the design is not from “back then,” the architect is hopefully competent for both “halves” (phases), and bringing in a design at all is the surest way to steer into the wrong direction.

Follow my “House Building Roadmap, for you too: the HOAI phase model!” with the first two steps “Module A” and “Rising Time with Decision Making” – of course only if you don’t have money to burn and want to lose it. An important principle is: “plan first, then draw” (meaning that before any drawing takes place, there should be proper concept development based on a qualified space program). The architect should be independent and, as said, master both phases (otherwise he will serve you unrealistic cost estimates).

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

ypg18 Mar 2026 00:38

#15

RomeoZwo schrieb:
I will never understand why architects like to place sofas in front of large glass walls only to have people staring into a dark, empty room.

Well, if there’s enough space and a beautiful garden behind the sofa or window, it simply looks great – as if the sofa is part of the garden. However, the room itself also needs to be designed so that this view can be appreciated. A cramped 12sqm (130 sq ft) niche where the sofa is squeezed against the window is definitely not enough.

RomeoZwo schrieb:
Windows are meant for looking OUT, right?

Yes, but not necessarily from the sofa inside the room.

RomeoZwo schrieb:
There are always ways to position the sofa so you can look outside and watch TV at the same time.

Yes, that’s possible. We have it like that too. And sometimes I do catch myself looking outside.
But living in a house offers many other opportunities to enjoy the garden or the outdoors. You don’t have to do that precisely when you relax on the sofa around nine in the evening to focus on the TV. It’s already dark after work in winter, and in summer you’re usually outside anyway. So, why not?

motorradsilke18 Mar 2026 06:36

#16

ypg schrieb:
However, there are many other moments in daily home life to look outside into the garden. You don’t have to do that exactly when you’re flopping down on the couch around nine in the evening to relax in front of the TV. In winter, it’s dark after work anyway, and in summer, you sit outside. So, why not?

Because some people don’t only sit on the couch at 9 p.m. but also during the day. Because there are times between summer and winter when it’s still light after work but too cold to sit outside, like now for example. We also have our sofa arranged so that we can look outside while sitting on it. And I would never plan it differently. For me, the practical use is always more important than just how something looks.

ypg18 Mar 2026 10:47

#17

motorradsilke schrieb:
Because some people don’t just sit on the sofa at 9 p.m.,

You’re right. Your daily rhythm is different now than that of the original poster.

There is always more than just black and white.
This was just a response to @RomeoZwei.

motorradsilke schrieb:
For me, practical use is always more important than something just looking cool.

What is peaceful rest on the sofa with a view of the garden for one person is the view of the room with the sofa in front of the garden for another.
Notice anything? The “practical use” is actually missing for both.

If something looks amazing, you can enjoy it constantly and for a long time.

This is not a plain standard house. There is a long window wall to furnish. A sofa works really well there. For Silke or other connoisseurs, one or two swivel chairs are placed there. It’s more practical than putting a TV in front of the window wall. Practical. This house isn’t practical anyway. Nor is the long window wall. But practical does not mean universally valid. Just like the furniture layouts shown in a design plan.

derdietmar18 Mar 2026 11:16

#18

Hello,

Overall, the floor plan is quite good, but I see some minor potential improvements and necessary changes:

Basement

Painting is too expensive

Garage

Enlarge to the maximum boundary length (9 m) (30 feet) to accommodate the building services
The overhang of the front roof is unnecessary

Ground floor

The window front is not feasible from a structural perspective, as it lacks support – I would probably replace the vertical window section (west of the "W" in the plan) with a wall; the window west of the sofa might also need to be slightly reduced
If needed to save costs, the window south of the sofa can be reduced, and the glass corner removed – here, I could also imagine a window with a 40 cm (16 inch) sill height, with a bench outside underneath the window
Enlarge the southern kitchen window so that only the depth of the kitchen unit remains as a wall projection; remove the eastern window since the utility room is now there
Rotate the kitchen island and fully equip it (sink, cooktop with extractor)

Upper floor

Children’s bathroom in place of the current dressing room; reduce the size of the master bathroom
Move the dressing room fully to the west with access from the south; place the bedroom between the dressing room and the children’s bathroom
Storage/laundry room at the west end of the hallway

This should keep the budget on track.

Best regards

ᐅ Floor plan design for a single-family house including basement and double garage

Reaktionen