ᐅ Floor Plan Ideas for a 1,700 sq ft L-Shaped Single-Family Home with a Gable Roof
Created on: 7 Oct 2023 18:51
P
PiePie
Hello,
After a long time, the topic of building a house is becoming serious for us again. Thanks to the KFW300 upgrade and several available plots near us, building is now fundamentally feasible.
I understand that my current question can’t be fully answered, as I cannot specify a concrete plot, and therefore factors like orientation cannot be considered.
At the moment, we want to figure out what we like and what we need.
While there are countless floor plans available for bungalows and rectangular single-family homes, I currently can’t find any for my desired house type.
I’m imagining a single-family house with the following parameters and initially just need sample floor plans:
L-shape
Gable roof
About 160 sqm (1,722 sq ft)
Open kitchen with dining and living area
Ground floor office and utility room
Upstairs 3 bedrooms plus bathroom
Is it generally possible to convert half of the attic in this type of house? This would be a guest room and a backup space for a third child’s room.
Do you happen to know where I can find this, or does anyone have ideas for a floor plan?
After a long time, the topic of building a house is becoming serious for us again. Thanks to the KFW300 upgrade and several available plots near us, building is now fundamentally feasible.
I understand that my current question can’t be fully answered, as I cannot specify a concrete plot, and therefore factors like orientation cannot be considered.
At the moment, we want to figure out what we like and what we need.
While there are countless floor plans available for bungalows and rectangular single-family homes, I currently can’t find any for my desired house type.
I’m imagining a single-family house with the following parameters and initially just need sample floor plans:
L-shape
Gable roof
About 160 sqm (1,722 sq ft)
Open kitchen with dining and living area
Ground floor office and utility room
Upstairs 3 bedrooms plus bathroom
Is it generally possible to convert half of the attic in this type of house? This would be a guest room and a backup space for a third child’s room.
Do you happen to know where I can find this, or does anyone have ideas for a floor plan?
PiePie schrieb:
You completely misunderstood my question – I wasn’t expecting anything, just asked politely.
But that’s settled now, and I wish you all a nice Sunday. Then explain it to me or to the others. Maybe you shouldn’t sulk or act like a victim when there is disagreement. Because it’s not like we just say “that won’t work” without giving you explanations as well.
This morning I thought: "Joker".
You actually asked for "X" in the sense of something unknown, because you have not yet clarified how your question was meant to be understood. And now, after all the effort people have made for you, it was just about whether 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is enough for five people? The simple calculation tells you this already: (you live on 64 sqm (690 sq ft) as two people, divided by 2, multiplied by 5 equals 160 sqm (1720 sq ft); so clearly yes!). If you also consider that the need for living space grows less than proportionally with the number of occupants, you can even tick another box to confirm you are within a reasonable range. This whole "woe is me, nobody understands me" — seriously?
Since your question, I’d say, left room for the interpretation that during the years in between you had muted the discussions here, I asked for your input or self-assessment on how closely you have followed the discussions. Much of what is being said to you now are actually “frequently given answers.” And the question about child 1 and child 2 is really obvious if child 3 is mentioned and we haven’t had contact for five years. None of this is meant in a negative way — we simply need facts to provide more precise answers than "42." You gave the impression of being unsure in your approach, like riding a dead horse backwards.
Since then, I have gone for a reassuring walk — which I deliberately inserted to avoid responding to you out of fresh anger — but now I want to elevate your status to "ingrate Joker*." The fact is: all participants have made a genuine effort to help you far more than your persistently unclear question actually warranted. In my case, this included a reference to a source with more detailed explanations of better approaches. I’m not criticizing destructively — but as an experienced user, I can provide guidance and lead by example. Just by using the further search terms “house-building roadmap” and “Gerddieter” at the linked source in post #8, you can (just here in this forum, excluding whatever else you may Google) already find, for free and with all common pitfalls explained, the path to your (dream or at least example) house in one Sunday. Complaining about friendly help is, to put it mildly, cheeky.
Not at all. The style of @driver55 is the average tone in this green forum — here, only those who are “architects” in quotation marks or militant violators of load-bearing structure or specialists in botched planning have to bow before me.
That’s right. Anyone who supposedly has enough luck finding standard floor plans (and only not at 160 sqm when they are L-shaped) can quickly realize for themselves: 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is easily reached in a compact two-story design or, as an angled bungalow, requires no additional expansion area.
Standard floor plans work only as long as you don’t change anything beyond cosmetic preferences. As soon as you add an extra room to the program specification, their functionality breaks down dramatically. For the original poster, this means: a 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) standard floor plan works for five people, but a 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) plan for four people will have to be extended up to 180 sqm (1938 sq ft) for the fifth person. What exactly the standard floor plans were meant to serve for was also asked by me but unfortunately remained a secret :-(
*) You have received the answers: 0. without a plot, standard floor plans cannot be properly evaluated; 1. yes, 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is enough for a family with three children; 2. that you find no convincing hits in this size AND shape is because of the “and” — change it to “or,” and your bounty will overflow; 3. a gradually expandable building reserve doesn’t require a multi-winged floor plan; 4. if you recognize your planning dead end: here is the way forward. These are five times more valuable answers than you could have expected to trigger with your question — can you at least now see the inappropriateness of your response? (Then get out of your sulking corner, let it go, we’re happy to help here).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
PiePie schrieb:
But I have to be very honest about something: I asked for X. What you hear between the lines is: Put in more effort, you can’t afford it anyway, what have you done all these years in the forum and financially, do you even have the children yet?
That has nothing to do with my original question.
I only wanted to check with standard floor plans whether 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is generally feasible.
[...] you completely misunderstand my question — and I didn’t expect anything. I just asked nicely.
You actually asked for "X" in the sense of something unknown, because you have not yet clarified how your question was meant to be understood. And now, after all the effort people have made for you, it was just about whether 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is enough for five people? The simple calculation tells you this already: (you live on 64 sqm (690 sq ft) as two people, divided by 2, multiplied by 5 equals 160 sqm (1720 sq ft); so clearly yes!). If you also consider that the need for living space grows less than proportionally with the number of occupants, you can even tick another box to confirm you are within a reasonable range. This whole "woe is me, nobody understands me" — seriously?
Since your question, I’d say, left room for the interpretation that during the years in between you had muted the discussions here, I asked for your input or self-assessment on how closely you have followed the discussions. Much of what is being said to you now are actually “frequently given answers.” And the question about child 1 and child 2 is really obvious if child 3 is mentioned and we haven’t had contact for five years. None of this is meant in a negative way — we simply need facts to provide more precise answers than "42." You gave the impression of being unsure in your approach, like riding a dead horse backwards.
Since then, I have gone for a reassuring walk — which I deliberately inserted to avoid responding to you out of fresh anger — but now I want to elevate your status to "ingrate Joker*." The fact is: all participants have made a genuine effort to help you far more than your persistently unclear question actually warranted. In my case, this included a reference to a source with more detailed explanations of better approaches. I’m not criticizing destructively — but as an experienced user, I can provide guidance and lead by example. Just by using the further search terms “house-building roadmap” and “Gerddieter” at the linked source in post #8, you can (just here in this forum, excluding whatever else you may Google) already find, for free and with all common pitfalls explained, the path to your (dream or at least example) house in one Sunday. Complaining about friendly help is, to put it mildly, cheeky.
kati1337 schrieb:
The forum has always had a rough tone.
Not at all. The style of @driver55 is the average tone in this green forum — here, only those who are “architects” in quotation marks or militant violators of load-bearing structure or specialists in botched planning have to bow before me.
ypg schrieb:
When you look at house sizes and their dependence on roofs, you get to about 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) with a 10 x 10 plan, and if it is L-shaped, the wings (side lengths) are correspondingly longer. That becomes quite difficult or even impossible on standard plots.
That’s right. Anyone who supposedly has enough luck finding standard floor plans (and only not at 160 sqm when they are L-shaped) can quickly realize for themselves: 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is easily reached in a compact two-story design or, as an angled bungalow, requires no additional expansion area.
ypg schrieb:
But what’s the point of starting with a standard floor plan? Standard plans are doable and generally suitable for the average but also changeable. Only the plot, that’s not changeable.
Standard floor plans work only as long as you don’t change anything beyond cosmetic preferences. As soon as you add an extra room to the program specification, their functionality breaks down dramatically. For the original poster, this means: a 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) standard floor plan works for five people, but a 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) plan for four people will have to be extended up to 180 sqm (1938 sq ft) for the fifth person. What exactly the standard floor plans were meant to serve for was also asked by me but unfortunately remained a secret :-(
*) You have received the answers: 0. without a plot, standard floor plans cannot be properly evaluated; 1. yes, 160 sqm (1720 sq ft) is enough for a family with three children; 2. that you find no convincing hits in this size AND shape is because of the “and” — change it to “or,” and your bounty will overflow; 3. a gradually expandable building reserve doesn’t require a multi-winged floor plan; 4. if you recognize your planning dead end: here is the way forward. These are five times more valuable answers than you could have expected to trigger with your question — can you at least now see the inappropriateness of your response? (Then get out of your sulking corner, let it go, we’re happy to help here).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/