ᐅ Floor Plan Design for KfW 40 Single-Family Home in an Established Residential Area with Fully Finished Basement
Created on: 11 Aug 2025 20:39
A
AnnaChris88
Hello everyone,
After reading many posts here and following the discussions closely, we would like to use the collective knowledge and your input to reconsider our design. Attached are the basic data.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 414 sqm (4455 sq ft)
Slope: hardly any – 1.5 m (5 ft) gradient from northwest to southeast
Site occupancy index: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.8
Building envelope, building line and boundary: entire plot buildable, including a 4 m (13 ft) wide strip along the eastern property boundary, parcel 743/22
Edge development:
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 full stories mandatory
Roof type: 28-degree (28°) pitched roof mandatory
Architectural style: classic
Orientation: south/west
Maximum height / limits: none
Other requirements:
Owners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: classic with pitched roof
Basement, floors: finished basement, 2 full stories
Number of occupants, ages: 4 persons (42, 37, 3, 1)
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor: as in current design
Office: home office
Occasional overnight guests: few
Open floor plan
Conservative building method
Open kitchen with island
Number of dining seats: at least 6
Fireplace: no
Music / stereo wall
Balcony, roof terrace: originally planned above the terrace, canceled for cost reasons
Garage / carport: garage for storage purposes
Additional wishes / special features:
- There should be a large living-dining area separated from the stairwell by a door (sound insulation), a large kitchen with island, one bathroom with shower in the basement including two rooms to likely be used when the children move to the basement later; currently playing room and office/guest room, separate walk-in wardrobe from master bedroom, two large children’s rooms upstairs each larger than 15 sqm (160 sq ft)
House Design
Design by: architect and DIY
What do you particularly like?
- Ground floor is especially liked due to the combination of a large room with clearly defined areas
What do you dislike?
- Bathroom layout upstairs is not optimal so far, since window should actually be larger and face east
- Master bedroom should ideally be separated from children’s bathroom or walk-in wardrobe
- Window of guest WC faces north and not next to entrance door
Price estimate based on initial offer: €500,000–520,000
Personal price limit for house including equipment: €550,000
Preferred heating technology: heat pump with photovoltaic system
If you had to give up something, which details or additions
- You could give up: pantry on ground floor
- You cannot give up: separate walk-in wardrobe upstairs, shower bathroom in basement, door to hallway on ground floor
Why is the design like this? For example:
First discussion with architect and 7 rounds of “corrections” / revisions based on our wishes
We look forward to your feedback!!
After reading many posts here and following the discussions closely, we would like to use the collective knowledge and your input to reconsider our design. Attached are the basic data.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 414 sqm (4455 sq ft)
Slope: hardly any – 1.5 m (5 ft) gradient from northwest to southeast
Site occupancy index: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.8
Building envelope, building line and boundary: entire plot buildable, including a 4 m (13 ft) wide strip along the eastern property boundary, parcel 743/22
Edge development:
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 full stories mandatory
Roof type: 28-degree (28°) pitched roof mandatory
Architectural style: classic
Orientation: south/west
Maximum height / limits: none
Other requirements:
Owners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: classic with pitched roof
Basement, floors: finished basement, 2 full stories
Number of occupants, ages: 4 persons (42, 37, 3, 1)
Room requirements on ground floor and upper floor: as in current design
Office: home office
Occasional overnight guests: few
Open floor plan
Conservative building method
Open kitchen with island
Number of dining seats: at least 6
Fireplace: no
Music / stereo wall
Balcony, roof terrace: originally planned above the terrace, canceled for cost reasons
Garage / carport: garage for storage purposes
Additional wishes / special features:
- There should be a large living-dining area separated from the stairwell by a door (sound insulation), a large kitchen with island, one bathroom with shower in the basement including two rooms to likely be used when the children move to the basement later; currently playing room and office/guest room, separate walk-in wardrobe from master bedroom, two large children’s rooms upstairs each larger than 15 sqm (160 sq ft)
House Design
Design by: architect and DIY
What do you particularly like?
- Ground floor is especially liked due to the combination of a large room with clearly defined areas
What do you dislike?
- Bathroom layout upstairs is not optimal so far, since window should actually be larger and face east
- Master bedroom should ideally be separated from children’s bathroom or walk-in wardrobe
- Window of guest WC faces north and not next to entrance door
Price estimate based on initial offer: €500,000–520,000
Personal price limit for house including equipment: €550,000
Preferred heating technology: heat pump with photovoltaic system
If you had to give up something, which details or additions
- You could give up: pantry on ground floor
- You cannot give up: separate walk-in wardrobe upstairs, shower bathroom in basement, door to hallway on ground floor
Why is the design like this? For example:
First discussion with architect and 7 rounds of “corrections” / revisions based on our wishes
We look forward to your feedback!!
A
AnnaChris8820 Aug 2025 18:55gtown1994 schrieb:
Does the offer from Keitel-Haus include only the ground floor and first floor, or does it also cover the basement? What is the price per square meter (€ per sqm) for the offer?It covers everything – the floor plan exactly as you see it. Good luck.
AnnaChris88 schrieb:
We reconsidered and revised our plans. Even though some people here criticize the involvement or work of the architect, we have chosen that route and would really appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions for improvement. The surveyor has also been here by now. The height difference is only about 0.9m (3 feet). At least you seem to overlook/ignore my constructive criticism (probably because you see it as negativity). However, this has nothing to do with architectural criticism or the like when I consider your planner to be completely incompetent. The fact is, he delivered something what a lawyer would call an "objectively poor performance." Even if the fee claim is well below the scale, a proper service according to service phases 1 to 3 must always include the complete delivery of service phase 1 before moving on to phase 2. This is clearly not the case here; the house concept therefore inevitably "went off track." A height difference of 0.9m (3 feet) (even if it refers to the building plot) speaks against a basement according to the rule of thumb (which you can find explained in my post series).
By accepting planning services that were provided incorrectly on a faulty basis instead of rejecting them, the planner may consider his services to be implicitly accepted. You thus risk having to pay for these objective faults. Instead of discarding this nonsense and starting over at his expense, he can now charge you additionally for fixing his botched plans. In terms of avoidable construction costs alone, he has already caused you harm, although legally this is only “realized” if you actually build according to these plans. And one could probably do that, since this nonsense is “approvable.” But for such a result, you might as well have had the house “designed” by a student and stamped by a “rubber stamp.”
Since you are the construction manager, you should consult a lawyer to see if consumer protection laws might "rescue" you and if you can still make a formal complaint to the planner. Even if you feel confident that the design can be fixed with help from the forum community, you do a great disservice to all other consumers of planning services by letting such incompetent planners get away with poor work!
Formally adding the conceptually ignored terrain heights into these botched plan iterations and considering them in the drainage planning will not fix this fundamentally flawed planning for a penny.
AnnaChris88 schrieb:
Yes, we have done that – the architect will receive it and then plan the building permit / planning permission and drainage based on that. If you now have the heights from the surveyor, then please show them, so @hanghaus2023 can work with them.
gtown1994 schrieb:
Does the Keitel-Haus offer cover only the ground floor plus first floor, or also the basement? What is the price per square meter? Since the original poster probably only sees me as a nitpicker anyway, I’ll add this comment: I only hear the name Keitel-Haus in connection with unadvised laypeople who like their offers.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
I only hear the name Keitel-Haus in connection with inexperienced laypeople who like their offers. You probably count me among that group as well, even though the company Keitel-Haus (among others) was recommended to us from several sides back then. I will report next year how it went for us. Perhaps it should be acknowledged that a provider like Keitel-Haus can deliver a good mid-range product, but certainly does not compete at the high end when it comes to features and construction possibilities. Providers who do offer that are out of the price range mentioned by the original poster anyway.
A
AnnaChris8820 Aug 2025 21:0811ant schrieb:
At least you are overlooking/ignoring my constructive criticism (probably because you consider it to be simply complaining). However, this has nothing to do with architectural critique when I call your planner a textbook example of incompetence. The fact is, he delivered something that a lawyer would call an "objectively poor performance." Even if the fee claim is clearly below the standard rate schedule, a proper service according to performance phases 1 to 3 always requires the fully completed delivery of phase 1 before entering phase 2. This apparently did not happen here; the house concept has inevitably "gone off course" as a result. A height variation of 0.9 m (3 feet) — even if it relates to the building envelope — according to the rule of thumb (which you can find explained in my series of posts) argues against having a basement.
By accepting planning services based on such a faulty foundation rather than rejecting them, the planner can interpret his services as tacitly accepted. You thus put yourselves at risk of having to pay despite their objective defects. Instead of simply discarding this nonsense and starting over at his expense, he can now additionally charge you for revising his botched plans. At a minimum, he has already caused you damages equivalent to the avoidable construction costs, even if legally this is only "realized" once you actually build according to these plans. And that could well happen, since this nonsense is "approvable." But for this result, you might as well have had a student "draw" the house and had it "rubber-stamped."
Since you are the construction manager, you should consult a lawyer to find out if consumer protection law can "save" you and whether you still have grounds to claim against the planner. Even if you feel confident that the community here can help fix the design: you are doing a great disservice to all other consumers of planning services by allowing such incompetent planners with their poor work to get away with it!
Formally including the conceptually ignored site elevations in botched plan iterations and considering them in the drainage planning does not fix the fundamentally flawed planning for even a penny.
If the surveyor’s height data is now available, then please share it so @hanghaus2023 can work with it.
Since the original poster probably just sees me as a complainer anyway, I’ll add this remark: I only ever hear the name Keitel-Haus in connection with uninformed laypeople who like their offers. Thank you for your message; however, I can’t fully make sense of it for myself.
I understand you are saying that we should have started with a sketch, defined the space program, and paid attention to the elevations. But with the floor plan as it is now — what exactly is so absolutely terrible about it that I should sue someone over it?
I was able to understand some of the points raised by others and have tried to incorporate them. For other points, we have personal preferences that fit our life and situation. I really appreciate your commitment, but is it really all so bad that I should start over from scratch?
A
AnnaChris8820 Aug 2025 21:09roteweste schrieb:
You probably count me in this category as well, even though back then the company Keitel-Haus (among others) was recommended to us by several sources. I will report next year how it went for us. However, perhaps it should be acknowledged that a provider like Keitel-Haus can deliver good mid-range quality, but certainly does not compete in the high-end segment regarding features and construction possibilities. Providers capable of that are out of the budget range mentioned by the original poster anyway. We only considered Keitel-Haus because we know three people who built with them and are very satisfied.
AnnaChris88 schrieb:
We only came across Keitel-Haus because we know three people who built with them and are very satisfied. Besides other homeowners, Keitel-Haus was also recommended to us by prefab house experts and our architect. Of course, you could say they don’t really know anything, but I would give them at least some credit for their insight. Right, Elefant?
What we can say about Keitel-Haus: a medium-sized, family-run company. So far, we have dealt with about 8 to 10 people, all of whom were very competent. It is possible to get in touch with the managing director, and negotiations are easy. Still, make sure to review the offer carefully. Don’t expect too much from the standard package!
Similar topics