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:
maximum living space at low cost.I find this approach unfortunate from the start, because living quality does not come from "efficiency" in the sense of "extracting as much built-up space per money from the plot"—even if this way of thinking explains the choice of the "logical next step" of a square floor plan. The problem is that taking the wrong turn at the beginning leads, in "consistent further development," straight into a dead end (even if the original poster only notices the windowless interior bathroom—which, by the way, would only tempt me to add a skylight). The "design concept" of "subtracting individual rooms from a rectangular frame and what is left is the open living space" is basically just the most common beginner’s mistake—and if the rectangle happens to be a square, this mistake is "perfected" to the second highest degree (only topped by trying the same with a circle). It would take a miracle if even a freshly graduated architect wouldn’t come up with something better. With 14 m (46 feet) edge length (= 7 m (23 feet) daylight path to the middle), the misunderstanding of the insight "the first house is built for an enemy" as a call to action is pushed to the extreme if you add "and for your greatest enemy, you also design it yourself." Do yourself a favor and use this design only as a dummy for a discussion focused on the choice of building materials. A building material supplier very active in the commercial sector (Hebel, the name can be mentioned here) is promoting the switch to "construction without a separate load-bearing structure," i.e., explicitly prefers homogeneous construction over the aerated concrete–steel frame combination.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
tempusfugit schrieb:
I had already done a lot of experimenting, but I don’t see a good geometric solution for that. You should learn for life that just because you think something is a certain way or can only be done like that, it can actually be completely the opposite because you are either mistaken or have no clue at all. This also applies to the tenders.
11ant schrieb:
Names are definitely allowed hereExactly! Names are allowed here. tempusfugit schrieb:
Names are not allowed here, thoughWhere does that come from? Where does this misinformation come from? A statement without consequences, while other possible statements by you are wrongly interpreted and could negatively affect the house.H
hanghaus202310 May 2025 10:35Here is a draft I found online. You can customize it and add a staircase.
You can also enlarge one of the children's rooms a bit and reduce the size of the office accordingly.
Photovoltaic system with east/west orientation. Terrace with glass roof, 7m (23 ft) by 3.5m (11.5 ft).
You can also enlarge one of the children's rooms a bit and reduce the size of the office accordingly.
Photovoltaic system with east/west orientation. Terrace with glass roof, 7m (23 ft) by 3.5m (11.5 ft).
W
wiltshire10 May 2025 10:52Instead of focusing on maximizing square meters and minimizing the price per square meter, I recommend aligning your design with your own lifestyle. It is quite possible that the design suits you and your family perfectly.
If you want the largest cargo space relative to the purchase price, you would buy a panel van. If you buy a panel van from this cost-effectiveness perspective but actually prefer a more comfortable vehicle, you are making a wrong decision due to misplaced priorities.
Our approach to building was different. We thought about how we wanted to live and asked the architect to create a design that optimally supports our lifestyle, regardless of square meter requirements. For what our house cost, we could have easily built twice the living space using a different method and design—so what. The house we live in now suits us perfectly, and even after six years, I feel daily gratitude and joy for my beautiful and fitting home.
If you want the largest cargo space relative to the purchase price, you would buy a panel van. If you buy a panel van from this cost-effectiveness perspective but actually prefer a more comfortable vehicle, you are making a wrong decision due to misplaced priorities.
Our approach to building was different. We thought about how we wanted to live and asked the architect to create a design that optimally supports our lifestyle, regardless of square meter requirements. For what our house cost, we could have easily built twice the living space using a different method and design—so what. The house we live in now suits us perfectly, and even after six years, I feel daily gratitude and joy for my beautiful and fitting home.
tempusfugit schrieb:There are concepts that lose their charm if you remove their defining features. It might be that the absence of the light court—sticking to the example above—turns it into a panel van with closed rear doors.
Normally, the provider’s houses are built with a light court, but that would have exceeded the ridge height even with a 12x12 m (39x39 ft) footprint.
wiltshire schrieb:
There are concepts that lose their appeal when you remove their key features.
It might be that the absence of the light well – to stick with the image above – turns it into a panel van with closed rear doors. Without a light well, this image shows a panel van L3H1 with a length of 7 m (23 feet) at half depth and metal-covered rear doors.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics