ᐅ Floor plan for a newly built two-story single-family house, 200 m² (2,150 sq ft)

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Tomorrow, I’ll go back out to the driveway with a tape measure and simulate it again.

Best done WITH a car, in the dark, in the rain, even better with partially iced-over windows, while attending a child’s birthday party and handling an emergency call about a forgotten pizza. It never happens calmly at a desk; reality is often trivial but also cruel. Of course, everything somehow fits, but where people (sometimes even little ones) rush out the door, no car ever passes through—and certainly not in reverse.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

That would be an argument for a platform, but on the other hand, in the current or a similar layout, it would block the sliding path for the bicycles and also significantly complicate a barrier-free entrance. We don’t necessarily need that, but if in doubt, it’s probably more important to me than addressing a bad feeling that I don’t even have.

It’s not about your or my bad feeling, but about a factually justifiable, serious hazard that one should avoid creating unnecessarily.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Today I went up and down a staircase with a 90° turn several times, and every time I found it absolutely horrible. It’s not just this one staircase; I have the same experience in other houses.

Reminds me of Gerhard Polt and his staircase scene with Hanna Schygulla. Do angled staircases also give you goosebumps and hot flashes? “Absolutely horrible” as a walking experience on a staircase with a turn??? I think that shows the limits of my admittedly broad imagination regarding different people. I believe you keep setting one limit after another for yourself, and thus for the house, which will be reflected in the end result. But it’s an interesting thread—praise where it’s due.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

We’re not that absolute. I got carried away and expressed myself polemically. Every wish is only “relatively” important. But that’s no reason to remove them from the list; I just adjust the priorities and look at the overall outcome.

That sounds more reasonable—I just took what was written a bit too literally.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

The difficulty, of course, is getting out of a local optimum again.

Sorry, your “local optimum” doesn’t resonate with me; can you say that in everyday language?

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I would truly value advice from someone experienced like you: What would be a better approach to this topic? Serious question. I am as you accurately described because it helps me live well with compromises and, above all, not to regret any “what ifs” later. I’m sure my family and I would have been happy in the house from the first draft without daily worries about missed opportunities. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to get the best out of it now.

Experience and age alone don’t automatically make one wiser. But I do read how you casually brush off some advice, which you’re entitled to—and it’s an entertaining way to write. Buying a pink BMW 5 Series might make you smile; a carelessly planned house costing about $600,000 is less amusing. For example: my point about the driveway hazard. Please refute the danger I mentioned with facts relevant to your own building project. Perhaps I understand your style better than you think and am therefore cautious (with myself). We also designed most of our house ourselves because the general contractor was lacking in this regard and only implemented what we specified within the scope possible. We have about 100 hand-drawn floor plans here, and it’s a pleasure to look through them chronologically today. We’re very glad we approached this forum with an open mind and seriously considered every tip, even if at first some seemed odd. What would you lose by that? Of course, today we could live with many compromises, but we enjoy having those many carefully considered details. Although it ultimately became our floor plan, it was strongly influenced by participation here.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I’m so relaxed because the specifications in the offer already fit. We’re budgeting only about 20,000 EUR (around $22,000) for finishing selections on purpose. Flooring, walls, technical installations are all pretty much exactly as we want them.

I like the word “pretty much”… let’s see if maybe you become THE winner who manages that within the budget.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Besides, 5 square meters (54 square feet) of unnecessary hallway really isn’t a cost driver. There’s nothing expensive in it.

Lovely… But: 5 m² (54 sq ft) on the ground floor plus 5 m² (54 sq ft) upstairs, so 10 m² (108 sq ft) total. Walls, plaster, electrical, tile, roof, heating, and much more. Assuming about 3,000 EUR per m² (~$3,300 per 10.7 sq ft), you could have a climate control system, a shower oasis, a nicer staircase and terrace canopy, or the necessary space for your conference table in the dining room.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I’m obviously saying that now. But I’ll keep you updated after the selection phase.

Definitely… it’s fun just to read about it without having to pay.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

We both grew up in households where a second shower in the house went unused for 20 or 30 years respectively. We have decided that we don’t need one.

We used to wash our clothes in the river, too. Listen, comments like that are only for old-timers like us when reminiscing about the war. The time spent in bathrooms and the showering habits of today’s 16-year-olds (nowadays even boys shower more than once a month along with manicures) have changed—and probably will continue to change. Considering your 2 x 5 m² (2 x 54 sq ft) hallway game, I’d find half a square meter (about 5.4 sq ft) more for a shower on the ground floor better spent looking ahead 10–20 years. Eventually, the daughter’s 12th boyfriend will want to quickly rinse off the nervous sweat before taking off on his moped at 4 a.m. (or by then probably a flying taxi). Should he then use your perfume and your toothbrush left out in the upstairs bathroom? No way!

Arauki11 schrieb:

Sorry, I don’t quite understand your "local optimum"; can you explain that in common everyday language?

By that, I mean a situation where you can’t improve the design any further through small tweaks. These are cases where starting over might be advisable, depending on how much potential improvement is left.

Arauki11 schrieb:

We have about 100 hand-drawn floor plans here, and today it’s really enjoyable to look through them chronologically. We’re very glad that we stayed open-minded in this forum and seriously considered every piece of advice, even if it initially seemed odd to us. What do you think one misses out on by doing that?

That would honestly be too much effort for me/us. At some point, the opportunity costs outweigh the benefits of further improving the plan. In other words, if the house is already good, I’d rather invest my time elsewhere. “Perfect” isn’t my goal.

Arauki11 schrieb:

Example: I mentioned the potential danger of the driveway. Could you objectively disprove the concern I raised (with regard to your own construction project)?

Point 1: Two weeks ago, I walked through a small new housing development where about every other house had the entrance through the carport. So the argument is: "it can’t be that bad if so many do it."

Point 2: I am fully aware of the dangers for children in traffic, but the risk that a child might suddenly run in front of or behind a moving car is always there, even in a carport. I don’t see why the front door should be considered a special case in this regard. Granted, my child isn’t running around yet, so I have mostly been an external observer on this.

Arauki11 schrieb:

Yes: 5 sqm (54 sq ft) on the ground floor and 5 sqm (54 sq ft) upstairs, so 10 sqm (108 sq ft) total. Walls, plaster, wiring, tiles, roof, heating, and much more included. Assuming $3,000 per sqm (about $280 per sq ft), you could instead afford an air conditioning system, a luxurious shower area, a nicer staircase, or a covered terrace, or have more space for your conference table in the dining room.

I partly disagree. The $3,000 per sqm (about $280 per sq ft) is an average across everything, including rooms and fixtures that are much more expensive than a simple hallway area. If I reduce the house depth by 0.4 m (about 16 inches) to save 5 sqm (54 sq ft), but otherwise don’t remove anything, I definitely won’t save $15,000. More like $5,000, and then I really have to ask myself if the other compromises are worth it.

Arauki11 schrieb:

In the past, we used to wash our clothes in the river. Listen, only old-timers like us can make comments like that when we’re reminiscing about the war. The time spent in bathrooms and the shower habits of today’s 16-year-olds (boys nowadays even shower more than once a month and get manicures) have changed, and they might change even more.

Counterargument: Exactly because this wasn’t so long ago for me, I don’t need to imagine scenarios to justify the necessity. I simply remember how it was at that age. No teenager showers downstairs in the small bathroom when the bathroom upstairs is bigger and more comfortable. So I would be the one forced to make do with the temporary solution in 15 years, not my son. He will be prevented from that by having only one (but a nice) shower.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

No teenager will shower downstairs in the small bathroom if the bathroom upstairs is bigger and more comfortable. So I would be the one having to use the temporary solution in 15 years, not my son.

I’ll chime in as a mother of a toddler and a teenager, so a family of four.
I never wanted to believe it either—but our wake-up times have changed too, and every morning we end up blocking each other in the bathroom—and in the afternoons and evenings as well...
Having a shower on the ground floor also has advantages with a toddler or a pet. Imagine a 3-year-old coming home covered in mud from the construction site next door—in winter! You can’t just rinse them outside with the garden hose then.
You have a guest room planned, right?
At that size and price range, I wouldn’t skimp on a second shower.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Point 1: Two weeks ago, I walked through a small new development. Every other house had the entrance located in the carport. So the argument is, “It can’t be that bad if so many people do it.”

I rarely see that here, and almost never so confined. Please share some photos of “every other house”—honestly, I find it hard to believe that about five out of ten houses have such a cramped and awkward entrance situation as in your plan; I would appreciate some source to support this.
Just because many do it wouldn’t be my deciding factor in my own life. Personally, I would feel uneasy about it—that’s something I want to explain to you honestly. What you ultimately decide is really none of my concern.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

“Perfect” is not my goal at all.

Then let the general contractor (GC) handle the planning and spend your saved time differently. I get the impression that you want it especially perfect—perfect in your own hand-crafted and very personal way. That’s absolutely fine, of course, but people from outside will naturally point out inconsistencies. I often see housing areas and interiors that, to me, look terrible, and I realize it’s because everyone does it that way. In the end, almost anything can be justified that way, but to me, it still looks that way. On the other hand, if everyone has it, it also has the advantage that you can quickly find your way around other houses, since they are all roughly the same.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I don’t see why the front door would be such a particularly troublesome issue.

That can be explained logically since the front door is the central point where residents and visitors must constantly move to and from. You wouldn’t place a pot of boiling water right next to a children’s play table either, but rather at the far end of the countertop. I think I’ve said enough on this from my side; it should be seen as a suggestion. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own things and children. And… in 99% of cases, nothing like that will ever happen.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

That would honestly be too much effort for me/us. At some point, the opportunity costs outweigh the benefits of even better planning. In other words, if the house is already good, I can invest my time better elsewhere.

People are different here as well. We really enjoy repeatedly searching for details and solutions and then appreciating the “perfection” we found—it’s more of a hobby for us.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I partly disagree. The 3,000 per square meter are averaged over everything, including rooms and furnishings that are much more expensive than a piece of hallway. If I reduce the house depth by 0.4 m (1.3 feet) to save 5 square meters (54 square feet) but nothing else changes, I definitely won’t save 15,000 euros. More like 5,000 euros, and I seriously question whether the other compromises are worth it to me.

Then build it that way, if that’s true for you. I see only disadvantages in it, even if it is just 5,000 euros. I don’t like running into a wall right after the door, then having to squeeze around the open door (only a very narrow passage remains when the door is open), then turning around the next corner only to stand in front of an inward-opening door that I don’t even need because it’s always open anyway.
Again, one could respond with “I don’t need perfection” or “it only costs x-thousand euros.” I have nothing to counter such an argument. There is pleasant perfection (a well-functioning machine or remote control…) and pathological perfection. I like working remote controls and get annoyed by those that don’t function properly or are unnecessarily complicated.
I don’t believe your 5,000 euro calculation, and even if it were accurate, I wouldn’t spend even 100 euros on something I don’t need or that doesn’t give me noticeable added value. I would rather buy a nice door instead of being stingy there again.
I generally try to spend as little money as possible in the less important areas of my life so that I can afford the “best” in the areas that matter to me. This approach may not be mainstream, which is why your reference to common behavior as a guideline doesn’t really help me.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Counterargument: Precisely because my own experience is still recent, I don’t need to construct scenarios to justify the necessity. I simply remember how it was at that age. No teenager uses the small bathroom downstairs if there is a bigger and more comfortable bathroom upstairs. So I would be the one having to resort to the makeshift solution in 15 years, not my son. He will be blocked from that by having only one (but a nice) shower.

Then it’s clear for you and doesn’t need further comments. You shouldn’t expect me to construct something senseless either; I just wanted to share the thought process I developed. Everyone is different—fortunately!
As I said, I enjoy reading along—let’s see what else develops.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I find the accusation that I’m only here to collect "praise" unjustified.

Where is that stated? Did I miss something? I have to admit, the last 2-3 pages have been a bit slow for a discussion.

Arauki11 schrieb:

I find it hard to believe that about half of 10 houses have such a, in my opinion, awkward and cramped entrance situation like in your plan; I would like a source for that claim.

Well, we also have situations like that in rows. That might be due to poor development planning, like specifying the parking space/garage/carport next to the house, or the era when it was built. But you should also consider the compromise behind it – how people actually live there. Older properties/houses were built only for one family car, and that often hasn’t changed over the next 2-3 generations. Back then, the lots were larger, so newer residents nowadays have to find alternatives for parking on the property or along the wide residential street. That is no longer allowed or correct, since properties now have to provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and the street no longer offers residents any parking spaces. If you only have a 400sqm (4300 sq ft) lot, you have to save space in the yard. Anyone who reads a lot here knows that I personally value the entrance situation higher than an extra meter of garden. One thing is what is “required,” the other is what “can be.” The yard has to work; the garden can be nice.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

I don’t see why the front door should be treated as such a special problem.

It is the primary emergency exit. Period. It has to function not only for an adult resident but also for the postman, the children, parcel delivery, furniture movers, the group of kids visiting, or family visitors. Not to forget, as the primary emergency exit, the doctor, ambulance crew, or stretcher bearers. If the better half decorates the entrance nicely to create a welcoming atmosphere and wants to enter carrying groceries or the child’s go-kart and doesn’t know how because it’s uncomfortably tight, then the priorities have simply been set wrong.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

Every second house had the entrance in the carport. So the argument is “it can’t be that bad if so many do it.”

You can look, but you can also ask or question it. However, some people will never admit their mistakes. Equally, some have forgotten the legitimate reasons or priorities that led to the current situation.

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

So I would be the one who has to resort to the makeshift solution in 15 years, not my son.

That shows the way they were raised… hehe

HaseUndIgel schrieb:

The makeshift solution is reserved for me, not my son. He will have only one (but a nice) shower.

I agree that many people install these makeshift solutions in their houses. That tiny 3.5sqm (38 sq ft) shower room, which is then justified as "for later, when we can’t climb stairs anymore," I also find laughable. They plan a hand basin so small that you can’t even wash your hands properly, let alone brush your teeth – just to make room for the shower. That really doesn’t have to be. Either plan a practical guest toilet or give the family, possibly with a dog, the chance to freshen up quickly and conveniently where it makes sense. By the way, with four people, possibly plus guests, I would plan for two washbasins in the family bathroom.

Arauki11 schrieb:

I like functioning remote controls and get annoyed by things that don’t work or are unnecessarily complicated.

Just recently, off-topic: our neighbor struggled with hers and asked us to take a look during a visit. It turned out to be a new modern remote where you just turn it, but what or where to turn isn’t visible. So she was holding the control upside down. I advised her today to mark the direction with nail polish.

No matter how you twist the arguments: in a 200sqm (2150 sq ft) house, things should run smoothly, better than in a 130sqm (1400 sq ft) house. You’d expect that those extra 30-50sqm are not just there to make the house more complicated.

And here’s a friendly, homely tip: I’m also active in other groups/forums. In one group, not a day goes by without photos of real hallways showing open shoe racks and coat hooks, with requests for improvement, because the obvious clutter bothers people – especially since it’s the first thing you see in your home. The first thing they remove are open shoe racks. Second, the open coat hooks that are visible from the dining area disappear.

Arauki11 schrieb:

Reminds me of Gerhard Polt and his staircase scene with Hanna Schygulla. Do you also get goosebumps and hot flashes when you use angled stairs?

"Yes, the scene was not shown for technical reasons" ... "my goodness, [she says], this escalator." I don’t think escalators can be angled at all.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/