ᐅ Preliminary floor plan design for a 220 m² single-family house
Created on: 20 Jun 2017 22:41
R
R.Hotzenplotz
Hello!
We have already gone through several plans with our architect and I think we are almost there, about to start the detailed planning phase. Before that, I’m looking forward to getting feedback from other users.
Development plan/restrictions: §34 – two full stories
Plot size: 1,085m² (1,1679 yd²)
Basement, floors – 2 full stories plus partial basement
Number of people, ages – 3 people (37, 34, 1, second child planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor – the requirement was that bedrooms and the study should be about 17m² (183 ft²) each; the entire house should be approximately 220m² (2,368 ft²)
Office: family use
Guests per year: 1
Open or closed architecture: closed
Traditional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island – no open kitchen, but yes to a kitchen island
Number of dining seats – 6
Fireplace – yes
Music/stereo wall – TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace – balcony
Garage, carport – large garage
Additional wishes/special features/daily routines, preferably with reasons why certain things should or should not be included – everyone should be able to sleep as undisturbed as possible in their bedrooms, even if other family members are awake. The husband is sometimes up as early as 4 a.m. Otherwise, watching TV in the evening should be possible without disturbing those sleeping upstairs.
House design
Who created the design:
- Architect (freelancer for a general contractor)
What do you like most? Why?
The upper floor with well-sized rooms and the location of the rooms exactly where they should be (only the washroom area we would still like to move to the outer right corner so that you don’t have to pass it every time you use the toilet). On the ground floor, the access through an airlock, the kitchen, and the dining area with the study next to it are especially liked.
Also appreciated is that after adjustments, the study now faces the garden instead of the street.
What don’t you like? Why?
We originally wanted the distance from wall to wall where the sofa and TV stand is to be about 6.40m (21 ft) (large screen & surround system), but so far only 5.69m (19 ft) has been realized.
Laundry room as described.
Kitchen larger in square meters than needed; the approx. 3m² (32 ft²) could theoretically be used well in the living area.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
720,000 euros (including construction incidentals)
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
800,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Gas
If you have to give up on something, which details/features can you do without?
- Can do without:
Technical systems like controlled residential ventilation
- Cannot do without:
Space (except for the kitchen)
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Is this a standard design from the planner?
The architect has largely implemented our wishes; the only issue is the living room situation.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion?
Patient, quick to implement, has already gotten to know us well.
No negative points.
Do you notice any other points that might not fit or that we should consider, which we might have overlooked?
In the basement, the room currently labeled as home cinema might possibly be used as one medium- to long-term. For the foreseeable future, it will be a storage room.
We have already gone through several plans with our architect and I think we are almost there, about to start the detailed planning phase. Before that, I’m looking forward to getting feedback from other users.
Development plan/restrictions: §34 – two full stories
Plot size: 1,085m² (1,1679 yd²)
Basement, floors – 2 full stories plus partial basement
Number of people, ages – 3 people (37, 34, 1, second child planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor – the requirement was that bedrooms and the study should be about 17m² (183 ft²) each; the entire house should be approximately 220m² (2,368 ft²)
Office: family use
Guests per year: 1
Open or closed architecture: closed
Traditional or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island – no open kitchen, but yes to a kitchen island
Number of dining seats – 6
Fireplace – yes
Music/stereo wall – TV wall
Balcony, roof terrace – balcony
Garage, carport – large garage
Additional wishes/special features/daily routines, preferably with reasons why certain things should or should not be included – everyone should be able to sleep as undisturbed as possible in their bedrooms, even if other family members are awake. The husband is sometimes up as early as 4 a.m. Otherwise, watching TV in the evening should be possible without disturbing those sleeping upstairs.
House design
Who created the design:
- Architect (freelancer for a general contractor)
What do you like most? Why?
The upper floor with well-sized rooms and the location of the rooms exactly where they should be (only the washroom area we would still like to move to the outer right corner so that you don’t have to pass it every time you use the toilet). On the ground floor, the access through an airlock, the kitchen, and the dining area with the study next to it are especially liked.
Also appreciated is that after adjustments, the study now faces the garden instead of the street.
What don’t you like? Why?
We originally wanted the distance from wall to wall where the sofa and TV stand is to be about 6.40m (21 ft) (large screen & surround system), but so far only 5.69m (19 ft) has been realized.
Laundry room as described.
Kitchen larger in square meters than needed; the approx. 3m² (32 ft²) could theoretically be used well in the living area.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
720,000 euros (including construction incidentals)
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
800,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Gas
If you have to give up on something, which details/features can you do without?
- Can do without:
Technical systems like controlled residential ventilation
- Cannot do without:
Space (except for the kitchen)
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Is this a standard design from the planner?
The architect has largely implemented our wishes; the only issue is the living room situation.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion?
Patient, quick to implement, has already gotten to know us well.
No negative points.
Do you notice any other points that might not fit or that we should consider, which we might have overlooked?
In the basement, the room currently labeled as home cinema might possibly be used as one medium- to long-term. For the foreseeable future, it will be a storage room.
R
R.Hotzenplotz17 Jul 2017 22:32Whether this can still be done off the cuff... you would have to start from scratch. The stairwell doesn’t fit, and the existing basement is too small and mostly just a crawl space.
I don’t like the entire design. To me, it doesn’t feel like a well-thought-out overall concept, but rather a patchwork of individual wishes.
I keep wondering why the dressing room and bathroom need access to the balcony, while the children’s rooms face the street (or did I misunderstand that?). Personally, I would prefer a door between the bedroom and dressing room. As often mentioned here, if people get up at different times, they won’t disturb each other. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s so important to separate the dressing room from the bathroom.
Both children have quite a long walk to their bathroom, which is doable but not ideal. This could be planned differently.
The kitchen should definitely face the terrace, which makes much more sense in terms of the overall layout. This way, the passage from the kitchen to the dining area is not a bottleneck. Then the office could also be used as a guest room, and THAT is when a third shower on the ground floor makes sense: as a guest bathroom. It seems pointless to me if guests always have to walk through the dining/living room first to get to the toilet (I’m thinking of the grandmother who stays longer than the parents, goes to bed earlier, and may have a weaker bladder... not pleasant for either party... and even less so with less close visitors).
So right now, I don’t have a brilliant idea, but I don’t like it. I’ll give it some more thought; maybe something will come to me.
By the way: time is running out.
According to our initial planning, we should already be in the final construction phase... The fact is, we are submitting the building permit / planning permission NOW. Annoying, but honestly: the planning benefited from it, even though the basic concept fit well from the start and has hardly changed. But we were able to improve many small details, and now the overall plan fits very well. Losing a year is frustrating, but in the long run, I believe we have gained a lot because of it!
I keep wondering why the dressing room and bathroom need access to the balcony, while the children’s rooms face the street (or did I misunderstand that?). Personally, I would prefer a door between the bedroom and dressing room. As often mentioned here, if people get up at different times, they won’t disturb each other. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s so important to separate the dressing room from the bathroom.
Both children have quite a long walk to their bathroom, which is doable but not ideal. This could be planned differently.
The kitchen should definitely face the terrace, which makes much more sense in terms of the overall layout. This way, the passage from the kitchen to the dining area is not a bottleneck. Then the office could also be used as a guest room, and THAT is when a third shower on the ground floor makes sense: as a guest bathroom. It seems pointless to me if guests always have to walk through the dining/living room first to get to the toilet (I’m thinking of the grandmother who stays longer than the parents, goes to bed earlier, and may have a weaker bladder... not pleasant for either party... and even less so with less close visitors).
So right now, I don’t have a brilliant idea, but I don’t like it. I’ll give it some more thought; maybe something will come to me.
By the way: time is running out.
According to our initial planning, we should already be in the final construction phase... The fact is, we are submitting the building permit / planning permission NOW. Annoying, but honestly: the planning benefited from it, even though the basic concept fit well from the start and has hardly changed. But we were able to improve many small details, and now the overall plan fits very well. Losing a year is frustrating, but in the long run, I believe we have gained a lot because of it!
R
R.Hotzenplotz19 Jul 2017 18:26This is their concept for the supporting beams.
I just received the complete 3D visualization. Tomorrow is the final coordination meeting for the design planning. I have also attached additional views.
One version with a hip roof, one with a flat roof.
I just received the complete 3D visualization. Tomorrow is the final coordination meeting for the design planning. I have also attached additional views.
One version with a hip roof, one with a flat roof.
R
R.Hotzenplotz20 Jul 2017 13:40Almost 630,000. But several items are not included yet, such as controlled residential ventilation, smart home systems, security fittings, threshold sealing for terrace doors, and extra costs for electrical work beyond the building specification.
Base:
128m² (1,378 sq ft) basement
228.71m² (2,463 sq ft) ground floor/upper floor
26.36m² (284 sq ft) roof terrace (which was not originally planned by us)
There will be quite a few revisions.
The original design by the architect had structural shortcomings. Therefore, some things were simply adjusted, as I posted yesterday. However, I stated that I cannot accept visible support beams in the living room. So now a new plan will be developed.
Given the skyrocketing costs, the area will also be slightly reduced. They suggested swapping the master bathroom and master bedroom. I think that’s a good idea. It places the master bedroom in a more private location, and drainage can be better managed.
Most likely, a hip roof solution will be chosen. About 6,000 euros less expensive than the flat roof. And the architect’s stylish flat roof design was not structurally feasible. The visualized design sent yesterday no longer had an overhang above the children’s room area, which made it look more like a large block. The flat roof fits better there.
The general contractor is now going over the further adjustments with me. Their architect is currently out of the process, and an in-house architect is now handling the details.
It’s disappointing—we are nowhere near as far along as we thought. Until the email arrived yesterday, we assumed we would only discuss the costs of the finalized design today, talk about potential savings, building technology, etc., but now a revised plan must be created...
Too bad. I would have expected that an architect who designs the building would consider the structural aspects, and that such serious surprises wouldn’t appear only at the end of the planning process.
Base:
128m² (1,378 sq ft) basement
228.71m² (2,463 sq ft) ground floor/upper floor
26.36m² (284 sq ft) roof terrace (which was not originally planned by us)
There will be quite a few revisions.
The original design by the architect had structural shortcomings. Therefore, some things were simply adjusted, as I posted yesterday. However, I stated that I cannot accept visible support beams in the living room. So now a new plan will be developed.
Given the skyrocketing costs, the area will also be slightly reduced. They suggested swapping the master bathroom and master bedroom. I think that’s a good idea. It places the master bedroom in a more private location, and drainage can be better managed.
Most likely, a hip roof solution will be chosen. About 6,000 euros less expensive than the flat roof. And the architect’s stylish flat roof design was not structurally feasible. The visualized design sent yesterday no longer had an overhang above the children’s room area, which made it look more like a large block. The flat roof fits better there.
The general contractor is now going over the further adjustments with me. Their architect is currently out of the process, and an in-house architect is now handling the details.
It’s disappointing—we are nowhere near as far along as we thought. Until the email arrived yesterday, we assumed we would only discuss the costs of the finalized design today, talk about potential savings, building technology, etc., but now a revised plan must be created...
Too bad. I would have expected that an architect who designs the building would consider the structural aspects, and that such serious surprises wouldn’t appear only at the end of the planning process.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
that a designing architect takes the structural engineering into account Then they would be a structural engineer, not an architect.
In general terms, they certainly can, but not in as much detail.
Similar topics