ᐅ Floor plan design for a single-family house with approximately 130 square meters (about 1,400 square feet) of living space
Created on: 16 Jun 2024 19:36
J
jan_christlieb
Hello everyone,
attached is our design for a single-family house. I’m looking forward to your critical feedback and any questions. Thanks in advance!
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 500 sqm (5,382 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor area ratio: 0.4 (built-up area according to design 0.26)
Floor space index: 2
Building line: construction must be directly at the property boundary (to maintain the urban character)
Number of parking spaces: 1
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: gable roof
Maximum heights / limits: living area between 6.00 - 7.50 m (19.7 - 24.6 ft) / full height max. 11 m (36 ft)
Other: no or only minimal roof overhang allowed
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: townhouse with a cost-optimized layout (no projections, recesses, gables, etc.)
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 3 people (38 years, 38 years, 2 years)
Space requirement ground floor, upper floor: approx. 120-130 sqm (1,292-1,399 sq ft)
Office: family use or home office? Home office
Guest stays per year: between 20-25
Open or closed architecture: open
Conventional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen
Number of dining seats: 4 standard (+4 when extended)
Fireplace: no
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: carport
Utility garden, greenhouse: greenhouse
Other special features:
- Streetlight at bedroom level
House Design
Who planned it: mainly own planning with input from an architect
What do you like most? Why?
- Utility room with second entrance used as a mudroom
- Bright kitchen-living area with generous terrace
- Two offices or home offices still possible when guests are present
- Vaulted rooms on upper floor with sleeping gallery
- Covered main entrance via carport
What do you not like? Why?
- Northwest elevation (window arrangement)
- No existing trees on the property; a good, constructive sunshade on the terrace is absolutely necessary
- No evening sun in the garden
- Small office could get too hot in summer (many windows, little space)
Price estimate by architect/planner: 400K
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 450K
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you had to give up, which details / additions
- Could give up: bikeport / second home office / shower on ground floor
- Could not give up: home office, bedroom, children’s room
Why is the design the way it is now? For example,
The design is the result of:
- our needs analysis
- available budget
- inspiration from model homes and media (magazines / books / YouTube)
attached is our design for a single-family house. I’m looking forward to your critical feedback and any questions. Thanks in advance!
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 500 sqm (5,382 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor area ratio: 0.4 (built-up area according to design 0.26)
Floor space index: 2
Building line: construction must be directly at the property boundary (to maintain the urban character)
Number of parking spaces: 1
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: gable roof
Maximum heights / limits: living area between 6.00 - 7.50 m (19.7 - 24.6 ft) / full height max. 11 m (36 ft)
Other: no or only minimal roof overhang allowed
Client Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: townhouse with a cost-optimized layout (no projections, recesses, gables, etc.)
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 3 people (38 years, 38 years, 2 years)
Space requirement ground floor, upper floor: approx. 120-130 sqm (1,292-1,399 sq ft)
Office: family use or home office? Home office
Guest stays per year: between 20-25
Open or closed architecture: open
Conventional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen
Number of dining seats: 4 standard (+4 when extended)
Fireplace: no
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: carport
Utility garden, greenhouse: greenhouse
Other special features:
- Streetlight at bedroom level
House Design
Who planned it: mainly own planning with input from an architect
What do you like most? Why?
- Utility room with second entrance used as a mudroom
- Bright kitchen-living area with generous terrace
- Two offices or home offices still possible when guests are present
- Vaulted rooms on upper floor with sleeping gallery
- Covered main entrance via carport
What do you not like? Why?
- Northwest elevation (window arrangement)
- No existing trees on the property; a good, constructive sunshade on the terrace is absolutely necessary
- No evening sun in the garden
- Small office could get too hot in summer (many windows, little space)
Price estimate by architect/planner: 400K
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 450K
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you had to give up, which details / additions
- Could give up: bikeport / second home office / shower on ground floor
- Could not give up: home office, bedroom, children’s room
Why is the design the way it is now? For example,
The design is the result of:
- our needs analysis
- available budget
- inspiration from model homes and media (magazines / books / YouTube)
Admittedly, it’s unfortunate that you haven’t budgeted any money or the 40,000€ for the attic conversion. A ladder would be a no-go for me. I would rather pay for a proper staircase and then gradually finish the build-out myself. That way, you could also have a second office.
. . and it’s not worth a penny. It’s really poor. Why not straighten the kitchen wall and create the access to the utility room there (under the stairs)? What’s drawn now is quite awkward. The separate storage space under the stairs is also impractical. What kind of door is that supposed to be? Only 1.50/1.70 meters (4 ft 11 in / 5 ft 7 in) tall?
jan_christlieb schrieb:
The passage to the utility/technical room is 0.95m (3.1 feet) wide.
. . and it’s not worth a penny. It’s really poor. Why not straighten the kitchen wall and create the access to the utility room there (under the stairs)? What’s drawn now is quite awkward. The separate storage space under the stairs is also impractical. What kind of door is that supposed to be? Only 1.50/1.70 meters (4 ft 11 in / 5 ft 7 in) tall?
I can only agree with the previous contributors and would like to add one more point... A structural shell dimension of 528 cm (208 inches) for the kitchen/dining area is really tight.
60 cm (24 inches) tall cabinet row
110 cm (43 inches) island clearance
100 cm (39 inches) island depth
... that leaves only 248 cm (98 inches) for a table with chairs, where usually about 300 cm (118 inches) is needed. You also want to be able to walk past the chairs when someone is sitting.
And using the attic for a hobby room... sleeping, etc., only in the middle is there almost 200 cm (79 inches) ceiling height, and it quickly drops off. Then there’s a ladder from the office, whereas a stair extension would be much more practical.
60 cm (24 inches) tall cabinet row
110 cm (43 inches) island clearance
100 cm (39 inches) island depth
... that leaves only 248 cm (98 inches) for a table with chairs, where usually about 300 cm (118 inches) is needed. You also want to be able to walk past the chairs when someone is sitting.
And using the attic for a hobby room... sleeping, etc., only in the middle is there almost 200 cm (79 inches) ceiling height, and it quickly drops off. Then there’s a ladder from the office, whereas a stair extension would be much more practical.
Your walking paths are a bit unusual. You don’t enter through the door and then immediately turn sharply left like on a drill ground.
Also, the doors under the stairs are really inconvenient.
If the attic won’t be regularly accessed anyway, skip the insulation and keep it as a cold roof. You’d rather invest that money in optimizing the living space. Maybe think a bit outside the box (the size is roughly the same!):
Also, the doors under the stairs are really inconvenient.
If the attic won’t be regularly accessed anyway, skip the insulation and keep it as a cold roof. You’d rather invest that money in optimizing the living space. Maybe think a bit outside the box (the size is roughly the same!):
H
hanghaus202320 Jul 2024 11:58The staircase is now considerably better.
jan_christlieb schrieb:
As you can see, I have addressed many comments from the forum, and I believe this design works much better for a household of three than the original draft.Yes, you have understood everything well and responded accordingly. jan_christlieb schrieb:
A conversion into living space turned out to be too expensive (approx. 40,000 additional cost). The idea now is,However, the situation is changing. The double-wound staircase naturally suggested itself because of the attic. If planning with the conversion is no longer possible, then @K a t j a’s idea would indeed be worth considering.Attached is an alternative for the upper floor to the last proposal. A workspace is integrated into the bedroom here. This makes the rooms less cramped and allows the bedroom to face east again. However, the bathroom is located above the kitchen – the routing of the pipes would need to be considered.
Similar topics