ᐅ Floor plan design for a single-family house on a 10% south-facing slope. Entrance with a landing staircase.
Created on: 2 Aug 2025 23:15
H
Hanger1
Hello everyone,
Some time ago, I created a post about the layout and optimal use of our approximately 600 sqm (6460 sq ft) plot of land with about a 10% south-facing slope.
We have now spent some time drawing, considering, erasing, and so on, and have developed the following floor plan.
Since we have about a 10% slope, I want to make optimal use of the hillside. My idea is that the main entrance is on the landing staircase, meaning on the level between the ground floor and the first floor, but with an enlarged landing.
From there, half a flight of stairs leads up to the upper floor (sleeping area) or half a flight down to the ground floor (living area).
This idea comes from the split-level concept.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Size of the plot: 600 sqm (6460 sq ft)
Slope: 10% south-facing slope
Site coverage ratio: 0.3
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Number of parking spaces: not yet decided, probably 2
Number of stories: currently planning 2 full stories
Roof type: gable or hip roof
Architectural style: classic
Orientation: north-south
Owners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, number of floors
Number of residents, age: 2 adults, currently 1 child, 2-3 children planned in future
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office: family use or home office? The office could alternatively be used as a third child’s bedroom
Overnight guests are negligible
Open or closed architecture: open design
Conservative or modern construction: conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island: U-shaped kitchen, already planned at the kitchen studio. The optimal size for us is 3 x 4 m (10 x 13 ft). We want a hidden door on the short side leading to the storage/pantry.
Number of dining seats: 1
Fireplace: no
Guest WC should include a shower, as my wife will be working shift work again in the future and having a shower away from the bedrooms is convenient.
House Design
Who created the plan:
- Planner from a building company: ideas from a builder, but we are doing it ourselves (DIY)
What do you like about it? Why?
What do you not like? Why? We are uncertain whether the north side near the entrance on the intermediate level looks too disjointed, because the upper floor windows start at the height where the front door ends.
Personal budget limit for the house, including fittings: 500k
Preferred heating technology: heat pump
If you have to give up anything, which details or extras
- could you give up? Preferably less square meters.
- cannot do without? WC/shower on the ground floor.
The following rooms are planned:
1: Living room with sliding door to dining area
2: Dining area
3: Kitchen with sliding door to dining area
4: Utility room
5: Guest WC/shower
6: Corridor
7: Landing staircase with enlarged landing
8: Storage room
9: Bathroom
10: Child I
11: Child II
12: Parents’ bedroom, possibly with a partition wall so you enter the bedroom through a small dressing room
13: Corridor (the landing staircase is not shown here)
14: Office / Child III
I look forward to your feedback!
Some time ago, I created a post about the layout and optimal use of our approximately 600 sqm (6460 sq ft) plot of land with about a 10% south-facing slope.
We have now spent some time drawing, considering, erasing, and so on, and have developed the following floor plan.
Since we have about a 10% slope, I want to make optimal use of the hillside. My idea is that the main entrance is on the landing staircase, meaning on the level between the ground floor and the first floor, but with an enlarged landing.
From there, half a flight of stairs leads up to the upper floor (sleeping area) or half a flight down to the ground floor (living area).
This idea comes from the split-level concept.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Size of the plot: 600 sqm (6460 sq ft)
Slope: 10% south-facing slope
Site coverage ratio: 0.3
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Number of parking spaces: not yet decided, probably 2
Number of stories: currently planning 2 full stories
Roof type: gable or hip roof
Architectural style: classic
Orientation: north-south
Owners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, number of floors
Number of residents, age: 2 adults, currently 1 child, 2-3 children planned in future
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office: family use or home office? The office could alternatively be used as a third child’s bedroom
Overnight guests are negligible
Open or closed architecture: open design
Conservative or modern construction: conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island: U-shaped kitchen, already planned at the kitchen studio. The optimal size for us is 3 x 4 m (10 x 13 ft). We want a hidden door on the short side leading to the storage/pantry.
Number of dining seats: 1
Fireplace: no
Guest WC should include a shower, as my wife will be working shift work again in the future and having a shower away from the bedrooms is convenient.
House Design
Who created the plan:
- Planner from a building company: ideas from a builder, but we are doing it ourselves (DIY)
What do you like about it? Why?
What do you not like? Why? We are uncertain whether the north side near the entrance on the intermediate level looks too disjointed, because the upper floor windows start at the height where the front door ends.
Personal budget limit for the house, including fittings: 500k
Preferred heating technology: heat pump
If you have to give up anything, which details or extras
- could you give up? Preferably less square meters.
- cannot do without? WC/shower on the ground floor.
The following rooms are planned:
1: Living room with sliding door to dining area
2: Dining area
3: Kitchen with sliding door to dining area
4: Utility room
5: Guest WC/shower
6: Corridor
7: Landing staircase with enlarged landing
8: Storage room
9: Bathroom
10: Child I
11: Child II
12: Parents’ bedroom, possibly with a partition wall so you enter the bedroom through a small dressing room
13: Corridor (the landing staircase is not shown here)
14: Office / Child III
I look forward to your feedback!
M
MachsSelbst8 Sep 2025 15:41You’re not seriously carrying the drink crates from the carport all the way past the huge utility room, through the hallway, dining area, and kitchen into the pantry, are you? You might do that for the first couple of months out of principle, but then you’ll lose the motivation and end up storing the stuff in the utility room, where you’ll build a shelf specifically for that purpose.
I would not have accepted the house design from the planner, nor would I have posted it here for discussion. As a planner myself, I wouldn’t release something like this!
Because: the living room with a depth of 3 meters (10 feet) would be a deal-breaker for me – and it would feel so narrow and corridor-like. Anything under 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) simply doesn’t allow for comfortable room layout in a new single-family home. That might be acceptable in an existing house, but not in a new build.
Secondly, I question this monstrous carport setup: why plan for two driveways? I mean, building authorities are usually reluctant to approve two of those anyway. But how does this work practically? There is a parking space accessible from the north and also one from the west. The entrance is so awkwardly positioned that an emergency stretcher can’t be carried in. If they can even find the entrance at all. There’s also the risk for residents falling down the stairs or off the balustrade.
And the delivery driver has to snake along next to the carport toward the kitchen window, then squeeze between the car and the house wall? I’d say: wrong turn. The planner, not the delivery driver. At least the driver can knock at the kitchen window 😉
Or does this “access and driveway from two sides” idea come from you as a starting point? It was you who always talked about a guest entrance, right?
In principle, that sounds good. But where did you find them? Sorry, but that had to be said.
Is it really intended to accommodate a child there, while Child 1 has 60% more space? Child 3 is already disadvantaged by the north-facing position. I wouldn’t have approved that design!
Which is already completely over the top.
Absolutely!
Also, it’s worth mentioning that the hallway is very narrow, and there’s no space for a coat rack or closet – not even enough for two people. So where are others supposed to store their jackets and shoes? And don’t mention expensive drawers under the stairs. The stairs are too far away, plus those drawers aren’t a substitute for a wardrobe but just a place for small items like shoes or accessories. The large hallway isn’t suitable either.
The staircase is right across from the entrance and does no favors for the house besides taking up hallway space. And you can see upstairs that the rooms aren’t planned equally at all. At the latest, but really already obvious with the children’s rooms, and with the bathroom window—you’d have had to use a rounded ledge because of the bulky carport.
Coming back to my original point: who wants to hurdle across and do a zigzag from the sofa to the door when the doorbell rings? You inevitably get caught on furniture or have to detour. That’s just not practical.
Last point: the bathroom is 9 square meters (97 square feet) for five people, which will be a struggle. Sure, in a pinch it might work, but I wouldn’t plan a family bathroom like that.
Because: the living room with a depth of 3 meters (10 feet) would be a deal-breaker for me – and it would feel so narrow and corridor-like. Anything under 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) simply doesn’t allow for comfortable room layout in a new single-family home. That might be acceptable in an existing house, but not in a new build.
Secondly, I question this monstrous carport setup: why plan for two driveways? I mean, building authorities are usually reluctant to approve two of those anyway. But how does this work practically? There is a parking space accessible from the north and also one from the west. The entrance is so awkwardly positioned that an emergency stretcher can’t be carried in. If they can even find the entrance at all. There’s also the risk for residents falling down the stairs or off the balustrade.
And the delivery driver has to snake along next to the carport toward the kitchen window, then squeeze between the car and the house wall? I’d say: wrong turn. The planner, not the delivery driver. At least the driver can knock at the kitchen window 😉
Or does this “access and driveway from two sides” idea come from you as a starting point? It was you who always talked about a guest entrance, right?
Hanger1 schrieb:
We were at our planner’s about 4 weeks ago
In principle, that sounds good. But where did you find them? Sorry, but that had to be said.
Hanger1 schrieb:
Maybe swap Child 3/office and bathroom.
Is it really intended to accommodate a child there, while Child 1 has 60% more space? Child 3 is already disadvantaged by the north-facing position. I wouldn’t have approved that design!
Hanger1 schrieb:
But then we’d need a different roof solution for the carport.
Which is already completely over the top.
Papierturm schrieb:
Please add furniture to scale.
Absolutely!
Also, it’s worth mentioning that the hallway is very narrow, and there’s no space for a coat rack or closet – not even enough for two people. So where are others supposed to store their jackets and shoes? And don’t mention expensive drawers under the stairs. The stairs are too far away, plus those drawers aren’t a substitute for a wardrobe but just a place for small items like shoes or accessories. The large hallway isn’t suitable either.
The staircase is right across from the entrance and does no favors for the house besides taking up hallway space. And you can see upstairs that the rooms aren’t planned equally at all. At the latest, but really already obvious with the children’s rooms, and with the bathroom window—you’d have had to use a rounded ledge because of the bulky carport.
Coming back to my original point: who wants to hurdle across and do a zigzag from the sofa to the door when the doorbell rings? You inevitably get caught on furniture or have to detour. That’s just not practical.
Last point: the bathroom is 9 square meters (97 square feet) for five people, which will be a struggle. Sure, in a pinch it might work, but I wouldn’t plan a family bathroom like that.
Papierturm8 Sep 2025 18:19ypg schrieb:
I wouldn’t have accepted the house design from the planner, nor would I have put it up for discussion here. As a planner myself, I wouldn’t release something like that! Those are strong words from @ypg, but the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree.
(Of course, we don’t know what the planner was primed with beforehand.)
I’ve been wondering all day why this house plan bothers me so much. Or rather: why I can’t come up with any ideas in my head on how to improve it.
That brought me back to the house dimensions. 11.11*9.49 meters (36.5*31.1 feet) is quite generous in itself. Yet, it gives the impression that it doesn’t really work.
What kept catching my attention again and again was the hallway. The hallway imposes a necessity that prevents the rest of the ground floor from functioning properly. No matter how much I mentally move walls around, I can’t find a solution with the hallway.
So, I dug into my memories. The provider is insolvent, but the house plan is still available: Gussek Haus Platanenallee.
With similar features (including the same front door location) and significantly smaller house dimensions (10.5*9.1 meters (34.4*29.9 feet); so about 10 square meters (108 square feet) less on the ground floor without the bay window), it suddenly has everything the current design lacks: a spacious living room, space for a coat area, a guest bathroom that could even be extended to include a shower, and even a small office on the ground floor. The downside compared to this plan is the staircase located in the “dirty” zone.
This does not mean I consider the Platanenallee floor plan optimal—I don’t. But it would be a much better starting point for the ground floor than the current plan. From there, you could adapt it to your own needs. Almost all other house providers offer floor plans with similar dimensions that could serve as a good starting point as well.
That also doesn’t mean you have to build with any particular provider. I deliberately chose Gussek Haus precisely because they no longer exist. I’m not promoting anyone here.
My point is to provide an impulse to cut through the Gordian knot. From my perspective, the hallway on the ground floor is that knot. You can’t make a truly nice ground floor with it.
As for the upper floor, in my opinion, it suffers from the carport. Given everything a carport entails, I wouldn’t design such a bulky roof over it—unless the local building permit/planning permission absolutely requires it. In my opinion, the house should serve the people, not the car.
Remove the carport, define the space requirements (especially important to make sure the children’s rooms are reasonably fair in size), and plan based on that.
PS: If you have four or more people, I would always plan for a second shower.
I can only agree with @ypg and would start this planning process completely from scratch.
I don’t believe this floor plan can be improved or that it would even make sense to try.
First of all, it seems to me that the covered parking for cars plays too big a role. I don’t understand how a "planner" can just tack on such a bulky addition with a large, separate gable there. I find it visually awful and, because of the building shape and the roof connections to the main structure, unnecessarily expensive.
The "hidden" entrance without a proper cloakroom would be pitch dark, both inside and outside. Then you have to walk around corners and there is an extremely narrow passage along the stairs to the guest bathroom.
What I find particularly bad is the living/dining area, which wastes space and will be difficult to furnish nicely due to the unusual room dimensions. Why is there a fireplace drawn in when you don’t even want one?
Just the door arrangement with the fireplace on the upper floor alone tells me the planner either didn’t put much effort into this or simply isn’t capable of better. Either way, it leads to the same conclusion for me.
I remember our own planning process, where we initially had ideas about gables and so on, which also ended up looking terrible.
Once you deprioritize the garage issue and put living comfort at the very top of your list, you will get a better result, since your described needs are really not extraordinary.
Right now, the car-related aspects cause you an unpleasant entrance, dark rooms, no cloakroom, and more, while the car gets too much importance in the design.
I don’t believe this floor plan can be improved or that it would even make sense to try.
First of all, it seems to me that the covered parking for cars plays too big a role. I don’t understand how a "planner" can just tack on such a bulky addition with a large, separate gable there. I find it visually awful and, because of the building shape and the roof connections to the main structure, unnecessarily expensive.
The "hidden" entrance without a proper cloakroom would be pitch dark, both inside and outside. Then you have to walk around corners and there is an extremely narrow passage along the stairs to the guest bathroom.
What I find particularly bad is the living/dining area, which wastes space and will be difficult to furnish nicely due to the unusual room dimensions. Why is there a fireplace drawn in when you don’t even want one?
Just the door arrangement with the fireplace on the upper floor alone tells me the planner either didn’t put much effort into this or simply isn’t capable of better. Either way, it leads to the same conclusion for me.
I remember our own planning process, where we initially had ideas about gables and so on, which also ended up looking terrible.
Once you deprioritize the garage issue and put living comfort at the very top of your list, you will get a better result, since your described needs are really not extraordinary.
Right now, the car-related aspects cause you an unpleasant entrance, dark rooms, no cloakroom, and more, while the car gets too much importance in the design.
Papierturm schrieb:
I've been wondering all day why this house plan bothers me so much. Or rather, why I can't come up with a single idea to improve it? Yes, it triggers a lot for me as well. Only that, due to my many years of experience and passion, I immediately noticed several things.
Papierturm schrieb:
Those are harsh words from @ypg, Well, someone has to say it; otherwise, the discussion here will just focus on the carport roof. But that is the least of the problems since you can always just put a flat roof on it, even if it’s a bit rough.
I also forgot to mention that the pantry is completely misplaced. You shouldn’t have to walk around it. The icing on the cake is the narrow space between the bottom of the stairs and that corner: one meter (3.3 feet)? Who’s supposed to constantly stumble on the first stair step there? Honestly, I can’t find a single nice aspect in this design where I could say, “this is a good starting point” or “definitely keep this.”
If you’re going to put up such a large carport, in my opinion you should be able to park two cars inside it.
Have your designer adjust the correct riser height for the stairs in your plan, because it’s not 18.2cm but 18.5cm (7.3 inches), otherwise you won’t reach the floor-to-ceiling height of 296cm (9 feet 8.5 inches). The tread depth is missing 3cm (1.2 inches) to reach the usual 63cm (25 inches) according to the step formula. This would mean the staircase would be about 0.5m (1.6 feet) longer.
Have your designer adjust the correct riser height for the stairs in your plan, because it’s not 18.2cm but 18.5cm (7.3 inches), otherwise you won’t reach the floor-to-ceiling height of 296cm (9 feet 8.5 inches). The tread depth is missing 3cm (1.2 inches) to reach the usual 63cm (25 inches) according to the step formula. This would mean the staircase would be about 0.5m (1.6 feet) longer.
Similar topics