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.
The furnishing of the cloakroom is a mess. I would like to see the shoe cabinet. Something was forcibly built under the window, which in my opinion doesn’t work. Either these are open compartments with jackets hanging in front of them on the left, or the doors swing into the jackets.
The large wardrobe should have sliding doors. For this size, swinging doors are nonsense.
The large wardrobe should have sliding doors. For this size, swinging doors are nonsense.
R
R.Hotzenplotz28 Jul 2017 05:54The architect mentioned that the many recesses in the façade make the construction more expensive. I have also heard that such uneven surfaces can increase the risk of moisture, moss growth, and similar issues.
We are now uncertain whether we should instead build a townhouse with a hipped roof, where the walls of the ground floor and upper floor align directly. Perhaps this can be softened by other design elements.
A Bauhaus style without these recesses and especially without roof overhangs feels too bulky, angular, and harsh to us.
Maybe we should simply try this approach and at the same time refine my conceptual sketch, which goes in a similar direction to what you once shared, kaho674.
It’s quite exhausting. But we feel like we are currently off track with the current plan. I believe that adapting the initially unfeasible design with its changes is not working. However, I also don’t want any moisture bridges or similar issues.
We are now uncertain whether we should instead build a townhouse with a hipped roof, where the walls of the ground floor and upper floor align directly. Perhaps this can be softened by other design elements.
A Bauhaus style without these recesses and especially without roof overhangs feels too bulky, angular, and harsh to us.
Maybe we should simply try this approach and at the same time refine my conceptual sketch, which goes in a similar direction to what you once shared, kaho674.
It’s quite exhausting. But we feel like we are currently off track with the current plan. I believe that adapting the initially unfeasible design with its changes is not working. However, I also don’t want any moisture bridges or similar issues.
I also agree that the many protrusions primarily need to be protected against water first and foremost. Chamfering and sealing every edge—sure, that’s possible, but I believe the risk of errors is high and the hassle could be endless. If you already have concerns with the flat roof, how much more so with all the edges and angles? Who will clean moss, leaves, and bird nests from those areas?
There is usually a reason why houses have been built the way older buildings look today. New materials may allow for new styles, but they don’t change the basic rules. Wherever water or sun—or both—accumulate or constantly hit, material degradation is significant. The more surface area I expose, the more I have to protect those spots. It’s all doable but potentially very labor-intensive and might remain a permanent “construction or maintenance zone.” Is that worth the aesthetic?
There is usually a reason why houses have been built the way older buildings look today. New materials may allow for new styles, but they don’t change the basic rules. Wherever water or sun—or both—accumulate or constantly hit, material degradation is significant. The more surface area I expose, the more I have to protect those spots. It’s all doable but potentially very labor-intensive and might remain a permanent “construction or maintenance zone.” Is that worth the aesthetic?
R
R.Hotzenplotz28 Jul 2017 08:47You are right. The suggestions only really came from the new architect. We never discussed this with the previous one, nor were we informed about it.
I am now looking for attractive houses in the urban villa style with a hipped roof, which might achieve a distinctive appearance through other features.
I am now looking for attractive houses in the urban villa style with a hipped roof, which might achieve a distinctive appearance through other features.
R
R.Hotzenplotz28 Jul 2017 10:21Our architect took the initiative to try drawing my initial concept. He doesn’t think it’s bad at all. The proposed slight reduction in the building size is easily achievable this way. Apart from the missing kitchen island (which might still fit into the smaller kitchen), I don’t see any disadvantages for now. Not even on the upper floor. On the contrary, one of the children’s rooms now has direct access to the bathroom through a door, and the utility room is larger again.
However, the balconies are spatially separated from each other. An alternative would be the roof terrace, as previously visualized.
However, the balconies are spatially separated from each other. An alternative would be the roof terrace, as previously visualized.
Similar topics