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.Hotzenplotz26 Jul 2017 21:19Alternative:
Or push for a design that goes in the direction I sketched myself? Kitchen to the right? Maybe something can be built there without a lintel. But that will be a lot of work since it means starting over again from the beginning.....
Or push for a design that goes in the direction I sketched myself? Kitchen to the right? Maybe something can be built there without a lintel. But that will be a lot of work since it means starting over again from the beginning.....
R
R.Hotzenplotz27 Jul 2017 09:29kaho674 schrieb:
I don’t really see any improvement compared to the original design.By original design, you mean the last plan the general contractor made, which was already adjusted from the architect’s design that we liked so much, right?
The only improvement I see is in optimizing the space, so that’s reflected in the price. However, it almost looks like there are now two separate balconies. Or am I wrong that you cannot walk from the balcony of the utility room to the other side?
Hello,
yes, of course I meant the latest plan from the previous architect.
Okay, price is obviously important.
I actually prefer the 213m² (2,295 sq ft) layout over the 220m² (2,368 sq ft) one. Mainly because of the improved utility room and the more appealing bedroom arrangement. On the other hand, Bedroom 2 is now quite narrow. It’s hard to say without exact dimensions. And the three doors in the kitchen seem like an obstacle course. Not very elegant.
The wall in the middle of the living room wouldn’t bother me too much. Sure, it’s nicer without it. But you could, for example, put up a huge poster wallpaper if you like that. Or family photos. Or, of course, use it as space for shelves. Somewhere the DVDs have to be stacked after all.
Don’t you want to draw your own design properly sometime? Then we can see how it compares and what’s possible.
yes, of course I meant the latest plan from the previous architect.
Okay, price is obviously important.
I actually prefer the 213m² (2,295 sq ft) layout over the 220m² (2,368 sq ft) one. Mainly because of the improved utility room and the more appealing bedroom arrangement. On the other hand, Bedroom 2 is now quite narrow. It’s hard to say without exact dimensions. And the three doors in the kitchen seem like an obstacle course. Not very elegant.
The wall in the middle of the living room wouldn’t bother me too much. Sure, it’s nicer without it. But you could, for example, put up a huge poster wallpaper if you like that. Or family photos. Or, of course, use it as space for shelves. Somewhere the DVDs have to be stacked after all.
Don’t you want to draw your own design properly sometime? Then we can see how it compares and what’s possible.
R
R.Hotzenplotz27 Jul 2017 10:09If anything, the architect should be the one to draft that. That’s what I have him for.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
I received new proposals today.
First, the original design slightly reduced in size. The structural issue remains. Below are three visualizations showing possible solutions for the structural challenges in the design. The columns could also be round. So far, I can only be certain that the partition wall is not liked at all. For the others, we would need to consider whether one or the other could be a compromise….
Basically, the reduction only brings slight budget benefits. The kitchen and pantry (now really just a small anteroom) are more comfortably sized, and the ratio between kitchen and study fits better. That the study is 1m² (11 sq ft) larger than desired is, I think, negligible. I also find the WC/wardrobe solution better than before. We now have 220m² (2,368 sq ft) for the ground floor and first floor.
On the first floor, the slightly smaller rooms are also okay – 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). This is the biggest concern in terms of the room layout, from my point of view…. What do you think of these and the other internal and external changes?
Unfortunately, many dimensions are missing again.
For completeness, I’m also posting a completely new design proposal regarding the exterior look with an even more reduced room program. However, this design is completely unacceptable from an exterior perspective. I really wondered how this could come about after such long and intensive discussions and the other proposal being so well-liked. Here we are at 213m² (2,293 sq ft) for the ground floor and first floor, but have a larger utility room with 6.76m² (73 sq ft). The children's rooms are somewhat smaller. That’s still acceptable. The entire first floor is okay overall. Downstairs, the smaller kitchen is pushing it with the kitchen island, isn’t it? The study is just about acceptable if you squint – really, it’s too small for me. And there is no longer a wardrobe. A lot of compromises for 7m² (75 sq ft) less – and with an exterior that is not appealing.
So, we’re not much further than last time. The structural challenges remain. Even in the new design, you can’t avoid beams. We can now take 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 there and they can’t get rid of it. By establishing a partial basement, another 30m² (323 sq ft) could be saved in the basement. But I don’t have any quantified savings for that yet.
They also state that the new design is cheaper due to the construction method. But that doesn’t help us if it’s not liked.
Take a look at the two different approaches on the ground floor plan, how the situation next to the pantry is solved.
I’ll now calmly consider how to proceed. I’m leaning toward asking exactly which changes would be necessary to eliminate the beam. That’s really the main issue. Otherwise, live with one of the three structural solutions?I find both ground floor designs significantly worse. The wardrobe and WC are an improvement, in my opinion – that area was too elongated and wasted space. Kitchen and pantry: poorly planned. Dining and living room: the space seems to have just emerged.
However, I can say something positive about the utility room on the first floor. I find it completely sufficient for laundry. There is enough space for sorting and washing. For ironing, it’s not suitable for the reasons I already mentioned.
What you make of the plan – hmm...
Similar topics