ᐅ Floor Plan Design: Single-Family Home with Basement; 560 sqm Plot

JKHandler schrieb:

After a longer period of consideration and research, we are reporting back with the following changes:

• Budget increased by approximately 35%
• Adjusted space requirements:
• Basement: workshop, storage, utility room, technical room
• Ground floor: guest room/office, bathroom, pantry, kitchen, dining and living room
• Upper floor: Child 1, Child 2, parents, bathroom
• Garage cellar eliminated

Our architect has prepared the following preliminary drafts for us. These serve as initial guidance (for example, the upper floor has two variants due to different technical shafts).

In other words: radically changed fundamentals;
where are the corresponding two ground floors?
As always, I refer to my post "The Upper Floor Takes Priority" as a key planning principle.

An increase of over THIRTY-FIVE percent in the budget, combined with the removal of significant sources of waste, effectively results in an increase of probably around FIFTY-FIVE percent. This can no longer be just a reaction to price increases but strongly suggests a previously rather careless planning approach!

---

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

ypg schrieb:

What type of roof is planned here? I don’t see a staggered shed roof, but rather a conventional captain’s house style?

For the marked chimney position: gable roof with ridge centered to the facade – upper floor as full story with precast concrete slab.

11ant schrieb:

In other words: the fundamentals have been changed to an extreme degree; where are the two corresponding ground floors?
As always, I refer to my post "The upper floor takes precedence" as a key planning principle.

Over THIRTY-FIVE percent budget increase while simultaneously removing significant waste points results in a net increase of probably around FIFTY-FIVE percent. This can no longer solely be a reaction to rising prices, but strongly suggests a grossly careless previous planning!

The ground floor (image 1) and upper floor (image 3) are consistent. For the shown upper floor (image 4), only the position of the service shaft in the pantry on the ground floor changes – this apparently got lost during the upload.

Regarding the budget increase: this can actually be misread. The subjunctive was intended here, meaning a possible increase.

So you want photovoltaic panels on the east and west sides? So the north and south sides would be the gable ends?
I don’t like the overall orientation of the house on the plot. It’s not even about north and south, but rather that the garden can basically only be accessed from the lounge area and the office/guest room.
If a hedge is added at the top of the plan, there will only be a 2-meter (6.5 feet) strip left. The property boundary is way too close to the open-plan living area.
Where is the kitchen door supposed to lead? To the trash bins? That area is too small to serve as the main terrace; the sliding door is in the lounge area. This means the kitchen is the farthest away, even though it actually needs a terrace connection more than other rooms. So when guests arrive, you can’t even park the kids in front of the TV while setting the table, etc. To me, this is completely impractical for daily use. And it’s clear why: because of the unnecessary “dirt/food airlock” that has to do everything but doesn’t allow a sensible layout. The house plan is dominated by the least important 4.71 square meters (50.7 square feet).
I would prioritize differently when building a house. As for the chimney: I don’t understand why it would be in the wrong position now.

JKHandler schrieb:

For the indicated chimney position: gable roof with ridge centered on the facade – upper floor as a full story with a precast concrete slab.

Is the ridge orientation your preference or a requirement from the building permit/planning permission?
What advantage is the concrete ceiling supposed to provide here? In my earlier post about the planning approach, you can also find "Plan change: converting the concrete ceiling to a timber ceiling" and the related post "Lightweight partition walls in solid houses."

JKHandler schrieb:

For the displayed upper floor (image 4), only the layout of the service shaft in the pantry on the ground floor changes – this seems to have been missed during the upload.

Then please upload the missing attachment. What is the profession of the service shaft planner? (They appear rather disorganized.)

What do you think about creating a comparison of the old and new designs integrated into the site plan (preferably a roof plan)?
@hanghaus2023: the original poster is capable, let them do their homework themselves!

---

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

Has the ceiling height been mentioned yet? 19 steps seem quite a lot. Where exactly are you planning to go with that?
Overall, I find the design a bit disappointing considering the budget. It’s a standard layout that has been exaggerated but doesn’t really fit your plot. The first one was already rather modest. Who is your designer?

ypg schrieb:


So you want photovoltaics on the east and west sides? So the north and south sides would be the gable ends?

I don’t like the overall orientation of the house on the plot. It’s not even about north and south, but more that the garden can basically only be accessed through the lounge area and office/guest room.

If a hedge is added at the top of the plan, then there’s only a 2-meter (6.5-foot) wide strip left. The property boundary is way too close to the open-plan area.

Where is the kitchen door supposed to lead? To the trash bins? That area is too small for the main terrace; the sliding element is in the lounge area. So the kitchen is the farthest away, even though it actually needs better access to the terrace compared to other rooms. When guests come, you can’t even keep the kids in front of the TV while setting the table, etc. To me, this planning completely misses the practical daily workflow. And it’s clear why: because of the unnecessary “dirt/food lock” that has to do everything but doesn’t allow for a sensible layout. The house design here is dominated by the least important 4.71 square meters (50.7 square feet).

I would set different priorities when building the house. As for the chimney: I don’t understand why it’s supposed to be in the wrong position now.

Thanks for your feedback! The ridge is rotated by 90°. That’s what we took from #13 and #17 and passed on.

The conclusion is: The floor plan is not really suitable for the plot. That now raises the question of how to proceed. Should the floor plan from #12 be completely revised (if that’s even possible), or do we really need to start from scratch again? If starting over, what would you recommend? @11ant prioritizes the upper floor, but before the upper floor you do need at least the approximate shape and orientation of the house on the plot, right?

11ant schrieb:


Is the ridge orientation a preference or a requirement from the development plan / planning permission?

What advantage is there to a concrete ceiling here? Where I posted earlier about planning methods, you’ll also find “Plan change: switching from a concrete ceiling to a timber ceiling” and the related post “Lightweight walls in solid houses.”

Then please upload the buried attachment as well. What is the profession of the technical shaft planner (they look so clueless)?

What do you think about a side-by-side comparison of the old and new designs inserted on the plot (preferably a roof plan)?

@hanghaus2023: the original poster is grown up, let them do their homework themselves!

Ridge orientation was a preference, based on #17. The architect apparently oriented the house along the upper plot boundary and therefore rotated it slightly further east than in #17.

Regarding the element ceiling: I see the advantage of using a concrete core activation system (especially combined with photovoltaics), no need for a vapor barrier (which can be error-prone), less cracking, and easier insulation (although this is a disadvantage for the attic).

As for the technical shaft: what exactly seems unplanned here?

About the overview: Before generating unnecessary work: Do you mean a comparison of #17 vs. #29 or #29 vs. #1?

K a t j a schrieb:


Has the ceiling height been mentioned yet? 19 steps seem rather many. Where exactly are you climbing to?

Overall, I find the design somewhat disappointing compared to the budget. It’s an inflated standard that doesn’t really fit your plot. The first one was already quite poor. Who is your planner?

Clear structural room height is 3 meters (10 feet). Floor buildup is 21 centimeters (8 inches); 22 centimeters (9 inches) ceiling drop in the hallway due to mechanical ventilation. The design comes from an independent architect. It seems to me we urgently need your help here... Perhaps it would be possible to work together on a rough draft that we could then present to the architect as a reference?