ᐅ Floor plan for a single-family house, 14 by 14 meters, with a limited ridge height
Created on: 6 May 2025 19:07
T
tempusfugit
Hello everyone,
a bit different and certainly very straightforward – here is our floor plan. The plot is in Brandenburg, just under 1,000 m² (10,764 sq ft). The zoning plan specifies a maximum ridge height at 34 meters above NHN (Normalhöhennull, standard elevation). The manhole cover on the street is approximately at 28.30 meters above NHN. The neighboring plot next door is accessible via a separate street (Pr).
The house itself will be built with a steel frame and prefabricated elements. The roof will be made of sandwich panels (Kingspan/Hoffmann) with a U-value of 0.15 and will be covered with solar panels (K2) on the southern side. This should hopefully reduce the sound of rain and also limit heat buildup somewhat.
There will be a gallery, which, due to limited height, will probably serve more as storage. Possibly, at least one area with 2 m (6 ft 7 in) height could work (finished ceiling height approximately 28.5 m = 5.5 m possible ridge height; 2.8 m (9 ft 2 in) ground floor; 0.2 m (8 in) ceiling; the rest 2 m (6 ft 7 in) up to the ridge). We still need to discuss this further with the surveyor and architect to see what is feasible. Depending on that, the gallery will either be open with a railing or closed off. We still want a “proper” staircase though.
The floor plan is quite pragmatic – the bathrooms present some challenges. One has no window, and the other is square.
Zoning plan / restrictions
Plot size: approx. 1,000 m² (10,764 sq ft)
Slope: No (approx. 10 cm (4 in) drop over 40 meters)
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Plot ratio: 1 (+ gallery level)
Building envelope, setback lines: 15 x 15 m (49 x 49 ft), 3 m (10 ft) to neighboring plot, 6 m (20 ft) to street (cul-de-sac)
Edge development: Last house on the street
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof type: Gable roof, minimum 20° slope
Style: Does not matter
Orientation: South
Maximum height limits: Approx. 5.5 m (18 ft) ridge height
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof type, building type: Single-family house / bungalow
Basement, floors: No basement, ground floor + gallery level/storage space
Number and age of occupants: 3 (ages 49, 49, 14)
Room needs on ground/floor level: Living/kitchen, bedroom, child’s room, utility room, office, master bathroom, guest/teen bathroom, walk-in closet
Office: Family use and home office? Both
Guest stays per year: Weekends
Open or closed architecture: Open
Conservative or modern build: Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: Yes
Number of dining seats: Corner bench/table, max 6-8
Fireplace: Probably not (no suitable place, cost) — if anyone has tips for an affordable fireplace, please share
Music/stereo wall: No
Balcony, roof terrace: No
Garage, carport: No, cars (2) will probably park on the east side of the building (with charging station) or below the turning circle
Utility garden, greenhouse: No
House design
Design origin: Do-it-yourself
What we like most and why?
Affordable, no structural challenges due to steel frame construction with large-panel wall elements, wooden stud partition walls, trapezoidal profile roof panels with insulating core, structural flexibility
What we dislike and why?
Guest bathroom has no window, master bathroom is tricky because it is square, likely limited height in the attic due to gable roof and max ridge height limit (34 m above NHN compared to 28.2 m above NHN street level), difficult to find space for fireplace, driveway is structurally unusable — it was set like that during street construction.
Cost estimate by architect/planner: Shell construction 210,000
Personal budget limit for house including equipment: 350,000
Preferred heating system: Heat pump (air source)
If you had to waive some details/upgrades
- Could waive: Luxury features, KNX system (instead Shelly devices), garage, external blinds (raffstores), expensive lift-and-slide doors, elaborate garden
- Cannot waive: Central ventilation system, large living space, as much photovoltaic as possible (approx. 120 m² (1,292 sq ft) south-facing)
Why did the design end up like this?
Basically quite pragmatic, maximizing living space at low cost. A lot of self-work planned – construction time is not critical, as about 1–1.5 years until move-in.
a bit different and certainly very straightforward – here is our floor plan. The plot is in Brandenburg, just under 1,000 m² (10,764 sq ft). The zoning plan specifies a maximum ridge height at 34 meters above NHN (Normalhöhennull, standard elevation). The manhole cover on the street is approximately at 28.30 meters above NHN. The neighboring plot next door is accessible via a separate street (Pr).
The house itself will be built with a steel frame and prefabricated elements. The roof will be made of sandwich panels (Kingspan/Hoffmann) with a U-value of 0.15 and will be covered with solar panels (K2) on the southern side. This should hopefully reduce the sound of rain and also limit heat buildup somewhat.
There will be a gallery, which, due to limited height, will probably serve more as storage. Possibly, at least one area with 2 m (6 ft 7 in) height could work (finished ceiling height approximately 28.5 m = 5.5 m possible ridge height; 2.8 m (9 ft 2 in) ground floor; 0.2 m (8 in) ceiling; the rest 2 m (6 ft 7 in) up to the ridge). We still need to discuss this further with the surveyor and architect to see what is feasible. Depending on that, the gallery will either be open with a railing or closed off. We still want a “proper” staircase though.
The floor plan is quite pragmatic – the bathrooms present some challenges. One has no window, and the other is square.
Zoning plan / restrictions
Plot size: approx. 1,000 m² (10,764 sq ft)
Slope: No (approx. 10 cm (4 in) drop over 40 meters)
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Plot ratio: 1 (+ gallery level)
Building envelope, setback lines: 15 x 15 m (49 x 49 ft), 3 m (10 ft) to neighboring plot, 6 m (20 ft) to street (cul-de-sac)
Edge development: Last house on the street
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof type: Gable roof, minimum 20° slope
Style: Does not matter
Orientation: South
Maximum height limits: Approx. 5.5 m (18 ft) ridge height
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof type, building type: Single-family house / bungalow
Basement, floors: No basement, ground floor + gallery level/storage space
Number and age of occupants: 3 (ages 49, 49, 14)
Room needs on ground/floor level: Living/kitchen, bedroom, child’s room, utility room, office, master bathroom, guest/teen bathroom, walk-in closet
Office: Family use and home office? Both
Guest stays per year: Weekends
Open or closed architecture: Open
Conservative or modern build: Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: Yes
Number of dining seats: Corner bench/table, max 6-8
Fireplace: Probably not (no suitable place, cost) — if anyone has tips for an affordable fireplace, please share
Music/stereo wall: No
Balcony, roof terrace: No
Garage, carport: No, cars (2) will probably park on the east side of the building (with charging station) or below the turning circle
Utility garden, greenhouse: No
House design
Design origin: Do-it-yourself
What we like most and why?
Affordable, no structural challenges due to steel frame construction with large-panel wall elements, wooden stud partition walls, trapezoidal profile roof panels with insulating core, structural flexibility
What we dislike and why?
Guest bathroom has no window, master bathroom is tricky because it is square, likely limited height in the attic due to gable roof and max ridge height limit (34 m above NHN compared to 28.2 m above NHN street level), difficult to find space for fireplace, driveway is structurally unusable — it was set like that during street construction.
Cost estimate by architect/planner: Shell construction 210,000
Personal budget limit for house including equipment: 350,000
Preferred heating system: Heat pump (air source)
If you had to waive some details/upgrades
- Could waive: Luxury features, KNX system (instead Shelly devices), garage, external blinds (raffstores), expensive lift-and-slide doors, elaborate garden
- Cannot waive: Central ventilation system, large living space, as much photovoltaic as possible (approx. 120 m² (1,292 sq ft) south-facing)
Why did the design end up like this?
Basically quite pragmatic, maximizing living space at low cost. A lot of self-work planned – construction time is not critical, as about 1–1.5 years until move-in.
tempusfugit schrieb:
Could you please be more specific and explain what exactly is suddenly questionable about the wall construction? I’m not familiar with every manufacturer’s walls, but with these walls my first question would be about sound insulation.
tempusfugit schrieb:
Sandwich roof – …, but it’s a compromise You’re already saying that yourself.
If you order an industrial hall, you get an industrial hall.
In the end, the interior finishes are probably disproportionately high quality compared to the shell construction. It’s like putting a Ferrari engine into a Dacia.
Please answer the questions! Who is the construction partner for the shell? Do they offer architectural services as well? Who is supposed to sign the building permit / planning permission application for you? For what house size / design have most of the offers already been submitted? Who confirmed the prices here on the forum and how many years ago?
N
nordanney9 May 2025 08:27tempusfugit schrieb:
Yes, I know that roofs experience temperature fluctuations when exposed to sunlight, causing cracking sounds, and they also drum during rain. We are taking a chance with a real-life test to see if a large solar panel installation on the roof can somewhat reduce these effects, and we will gladly report back.Tip: Use the search function. There are a few here with similar roofs (and actually, almost all are dissatisfied).
K a t j a schrieb:
The interior finishing is probably disproportionately high-end compared to the shell construction. It’s like putting a Ferrari engine into a Dacia. I always find it quite interesting what architects build for their own homes and what materials they use. Sometimes this leads to really creative solutions that don’t necessarily have to be more expensive than the standard.
With a bit of creativity, you can also avoid the industrial look of sandwich panels, as you can see in image searches for "kingspan single-family house."
Of course, with those large glass surfaces, it’s no longer a Dacia, and how well it performs in terms of sound insulation in practice is another matter.
W
wiltshire9 May 2025 09:42K a t j a schrieb:
The interior construction probably doesn’t differ much from other cases. Perhaps you lack experience living in other countries to think “outside the German box.” Here, hardly anyone can imagine running water pipes visibly on walls. In other countries, that is completely normal. This is just a small example. If such things don’t bother you, you can achieve a lot of cost efficiency even on the interior. Of course, there are regulations and standards, but ultimately, in a private house, you can pretty much do whatever you want in many areas. Those who don’t care about what “people” usually do in Germany have a different decision horizon.
K a t j a schrieb:
In the end, the interior finish is probably disproportionately high quality compared to the shell construction. It’s like putting a Ferrari engine in a Dacia. That is called a “sleeper” and is a pretty cool thing for some people. I love my “sleeper” (everything properly registered and never used in reckless “races”). By the way, the example is very good, because in terms of body quality, the Dacia is probably not inferior to the Ferrari when it comes to core values like durability.
nordanney schrieb:
Tip: use the search function. There are a few here with similar roof designs (and almost all of them are unhappy). Good tip!
About the floor plan: It’s not for me at all, since I’m an enthusiast for natural light and views. I think equipping the hallway—which appears large on the floor plan—as a “closet room” with lots of storage space is a good idea. In my opinion, that doesn’t work for the “dressing room.” With two rows of closets, you will practically only carry clothes in and out, but you won’t actually dress or change there because the space is quite tight. Regarding dressing rooms, my thought is: either do it properly or skip it. The children’s room feels comfortably spacious but is somewhat out of the way. Not ideal for children, but from puberty onwards, it will be seen as an advantage.
wiltshire schrieb:
Regarding the floor plan:I’m using this as a quote because the original poster is asking about it:I consider 14x14 meters (without the light well) to be a completely wrong approach. Additionally, there is an atrium that is not designed to bring light into dark areas. In this respect, nothing fits properly to be commented on (at least not by me).
tempusfugit9 May 2025 20:08Please answer the questions! Who is the construction partner for the shell construction? Do they not offer architectural services as well? Who is supposed to sign the building permit / planning permission application for you? For what house size / design have all these offers already been obtained? Who confirmed the prices here in the forum and how many years ago? Names are not allowed here. However, the builder has been working for more than 10 years, and there are about 50 similar houses already standing. Architectural services are included, but I wanted to get some opinions and suggestions about the floor plan beforehand. It’s quite possible the architect will come up with a completely different design later. All the offers are based on the initial design, although the external dimensions won’t change significantly. The prices were all obtained in the last 3 months. Yes, this is all included in the architect’s contract as well, but we are still collecting our own offers from the region and will then choose the most suitable option. Experiences from acquaintances in the prefab house sector confirm the insight that there is considerable flexibility regarding trade costs.
ypg schrieb:
I’ll take this as a quotation since the original poster asked for it:
I consider 14x14 (without light well) a completely wrong approach. Also, there is an open space that is not designed to bring light into darker areas. In that respect, nothing fits to be commented on (at least not by me). Usually, the supplier’s houses are also built with a light well, but even with 12x12 m (39x39 feet), that would exceed the ridge height. I have already experimented a lot with that, but I see no good geometric solution for it. You could at most install skylights facing north and omit the gallery ceiling above the hallway or leave the children’s room and study open as well. Then there would be very high ceilings, ranging from about 3 m (10 feet) up to 5 m (16 feet) in height.
Similar topics