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.
kaho674 schrieb:
I think the original poster definitely didn’t want the staircase in the living room to lead upstairs because of noise. But you’re right, reversing the stair direction would be the more elegant solution from a basement perspective. But it’s just a bit of fun anyway. The new floor plan will be coming soon. Until then, we’re just gathering ideas here.No, I never said "the other way around"!
I said it should nicely stay _in one_ room.
Be careful that your ideas don’t end up in the standard design of an affordable house [emoji23]
R
R.Hotzenplotz25 Jul 2017 20:57kaho674 schrieb:
What exactly is a "Sparhaus"?Probably those typical generic houses like Viebrockhaus.
R
R.Hotzenplotz26 Jul 2017 21:18I received new proposals today.
First, the original design has been slightly reduced in size. The structural issues remain unresolved. Below are three visualizations showing possible ways to address the structural challenges in the design. The columns could also be round in shape. So far, I can only say for sure that I don’t like the partition wall at all. We still need to consider whether any of the other changes could be a compromise...
Basically, the reduction only brings minor budget advantages. The kitchen and the pantry (which is now basically just a small vestibule) are now more comfortably sized, and the ratio between kitchen and study fits better. The study is about 1m² (11 sq ft) larger than desired, but I think that’s negligible. I also find the solution for the WC and cloakroom better than before. We are now at 220m² (2,368 sq ft) for the ground floor and upper floor.
Upstairs, I find the slightly smaller rooms acceptable – except for the utility room, which has now been reduced for the second time from 4.9m² (53 sq ft) to 5.64m² (61 sq ft). From a spatial planning perspective, that’s the biggest concern I have... what do you think about this and the other interior and exterior changes?
Unfortunately, many dimensions are missing again.
For completeness, I’m also posting a completely new design proposal regarding the exterior appearance, with an even more reduced floor plan. But this design is not acceptable from the outside at all. I really wondered how something like this could come about after such long and intense discussions, and after the other design was so well received. This version is 213m² (2,293 sq ft) for ground and upper floors but has a larger utility room at 6.76m² (73 sq ft). The children’s rooms are slightly smaller. That’s still okay. The entire upper floor is overall acceptable. The smaller kitchen downstairs is already borderline with the kitchen island, isn’t it? The study is just barely okay if you turn a blind eye – it’s actually too small for me. And there is no longer a cloakroom. So many compromises for 7m² (75 sq ft) less – and with an exterior that is not appealing.
So we haven’t made much progress since last time. The structural challenges remain. Not even in the new design can we avoid beams. So now we can choose one of the two “adjusted” designs. The utility room still needs to be clarified. And we would have to accept the oversized roof terrace. They say it’s required and can’t be removed. By adding a partial basement, about 30m² (323 sq ft) could be saved in the basement. However, I don’t have any cost savings quantified yet.
They also say that the new design is cheaper due to the construction method. But that doesn’t help us if we don’t like it.
Take a look at the two different approaches in the ground floor plan showing how the space next to the pantry is resolved.
I’m going to consider calmly how to proceed. I tend to want to ask specifically which changes would be necessary to avoid having beams. That is basically the main issue. Otherwise, live with one of the three structural solutions?
First, the original design has been slightly reduced in size. The structural issues remain unresolved. Below are three visualizations showing possible ways to address the structural challenges in the design. The columns could also be round in shape. So far, I can only say for sure that I don’t like the partition wall at all. We still need to consider whether any of the other changes could be a compromise...
Basically, the reduction only brings minor budget advantages. The kitchen and the pantry (which is now basically just a small vestibule) are now more comfortably sized, and the ratio between kitchen and study fits better. The study is about 1m² (11 sq ft) larger than desired, but I think that’s negligible. I also find the solution for the WC and cloakroom better than before. We are now at 220m² (2,368 sq ft) for the ground floor and upper floor.
Upstairs, I find the slightly smaller rooms acceptable – except for the utility room, which has now been reduced for the second time from 4.9m² (53 sq ft) to 5.64m² (61 sq ft). From a spatial planning perspective, that’s the biggest concern I have... what do you think about this and the other interior and exterior changes?
Unfortunately, many dimensions are missing again.
For completeness, I’m also posting a completely new design proposal regarding the exterior appearance, with an even more reduced floor plan. But this design is not acceptable from the outside at all. I really wondered how something like this could come about after such long and intense discussions, and after the other design was so well received. This version is 213m² (2,293 sq ft) for ground and upper floors but has a larger utility room at 6.76m² (73 sq ft). The children’s rooms are slightly smaller. That’s still okay. The entire upper floor is overall acceptable. The smaller kitchen downstairs is already borderline with the kitchen island, isn’t it? The study is just barely okay if you turn a blind eye – it’s actually too small for me. And there is no longer a cloakroom. So many compromises for 7m² (75 sq ft) less – and with an exterior that is not appealing.
So we haven’t made much progress since last time. The structural challenges remain. Not even in the new design can we avoid beams. So now we can choose one of the two “adjusted” designs. The utility room still needs to be clarified. And we would have to accept the oversized roof terrace. They say it’s required and can’t be removed. By adding a partial basement, about 30m² (323 sq ft) could be saved in the basement. However, I don’t have any cost savings quantified yet.
They also say that the new design is cheaper due to the construction method. But that doesn’t help us if we don’t like it.
Take a look at the two different approaches in the ground floor plan showing how the space next to the pantry is resolved.
I’m going to consider calmly how to proceed. I tend to want to ask specifically which changes would be necessary to avoid having beams. That is basically the main issue. Otherwise, live with one of the three structural solutions?
Similar topics