ᐅ Single-family house floor plan, slight hillside location, northwest orientation

Hello everyone,

We have almost finalized our planning with the architect and would appreciate you taking a critical look at the floor plan. Afterwards, we plan to proceed with the tendering process.

We generally like the ground floor (GF) very much. However, we are considering flipping the house and making some changes to the upper floor (UF). The garage, utility room, and technical room would move to the right, and the entire house would be shifted closer to the neighbor’s hedge on the left side (3m (10 feet) distance). The living room would then be on the left. It’s unclear whether the view of the neighbor’s hedge at a 3m (10 feet) distance will be nicer. On the positive side, the house would be better oriented towards the south and would let in more sunlight. The kitchen would then be on the right, providing wind protection from the open field while still allowing sunlight to reach the terrace.

Corner plot, one neighbor on the left, fields to the back and right
Ground floor area: 99m2 (without terrace), garage 30m2
Upper floor area: 78m2 (from 1.5m (5 feet))

Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size
approx. 750m2

Slope
Yes, uphill on the mountain side. There is a manhole cover on the street in front of the plot and one behind it. The elevation difference between the covers is about 3m. The plot initially rises about 1m (3 feet) above the sidewalk and

Edge development
Yes, it’s a corner plot. There is a neighbor on the left side. Behind the house and to the right is a field path and fields.

Number of parking spaces
The adjacent street should provide sufficient parking spaces. A garage is also planned.

Number of stories
According to the development plan, 1.5-story houses are permitted.

Roof type
According to the development plan, only gable roofs are allowed.

Orientation
Northwest

Maximum heights / limits
According to the development plan, the house must be built exactly in this alignment

Requirements of the homeowners
Style, roof shape, building type
Country house style, gable roof (eaves facing the street), single-family home

Basement, number of floors
A basement was initially planned but was dropped due to budget. 1.5 floors are allowed and planned as per the development plan.

Number of occupants, age
Two adults, early 30s, no children yet but a child’s room is planned

Space requirements on GF, UF
GF: Garage, entrance hall, office 1, kitchen, living room, dining room, pantry, technical room, utility room, guest bathroom with shower
UF: Bedroom, child’s room, office 2, bathroom, storage room (planned due to no basement)

Office: family use or home office?
Both offices are currently needed for work.

Overnight guests per year
Very rarely or none

According to the development plan, 1.5-story houses are allowed
Somewhat open

Conservative or modern construction
Modern (?)

Open kitchen, cooking island
Open kitchen planned, cooking island desired but dropped due to space constraints

Number of dining seats
6, preferably expandable to 10

Fireplace
Desired and planned as a partition between dining and living room

Music / stereo wall
Desired; a niche in the living room works well for this

Balcony, roof terrace
Desired but dropped for budget reasons

Garage, carport
Planned; it is questionable whether the garage should instead be located on the right to avoid blocking the south side.

House design
Who is responsible for the design?
Architect

What do you particularly like? Why?
The open living and dining area. The open view of the fields.
The dormer on the upper floor.

What do you dislike? Why?
The corridor on the upper floor feels dark. Many skylights are planned (knee wall 80cm (31 inches) per development plan, gable roof with eaves facing the street).
The ground floor might also be dark. The garage is located on the south side. The windows facing the fields are towards the northeast.
Skylights block the option for photovoltaic panels and the attic space.
The storage room feels out of place.
Since a basement was initially planned, a hobby room was also considered, but this has been dropped.
The master bed is directly adjacent to the child’s room, but the bedroom must remain there.

Price estimate according to architect:
€540,000 (we find this optimistic; we expect higher costs and would thus like to make the floor plan more compact)

Personal price limit for house including fixtures and fittings:
€550,000 (all-in)

Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump

If you had to give up something, which details / expansions
-you could give up: a two-story open space was planned but removed, storage room on the upper floor (is it really necessary?), the GF could generally be smaller to save costs
-you cannot give up: large windows on the GF, open living-dining area, access to the house via garage and utility room, fireplace, pantry

Why has the design turned out this way?E.g.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? The architect implemented the room concept well and incorporated many of his own ideas that we mostly find coherent.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it? We like the ground floor very much; there is still potential for changes on the upper floor. We would also like another dormer above the entrance door, but this does not seem possible due to the development plan (the upper floor would become a full story if too much area is covered by dormers). The study could then be where the storage room currently is. The storage room could become a combined storage and hobby room.

We are grateful for any input and suggestions. We are particularly concerned about the south orientation. We do not want the rooms to become too dark.

You should discard this design, and probably the planner as well. It’s hard to imagine a house plan with worse starting points: you already find the orientation problematic and would prefer a smaller size for cost reasons. The entire basement (and a void space, which is less important) has already been reduced without this being done before the initial concept. Surely you don’t really believe that shifting a window or rotating a door would suddenly make this flawed design fully ready for construction. Furthermore, I get the impression that the service entries to the house are overbuilt. The "architect" seems more like a draftsman for a home builder (which one could it be here?).

---

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

11ant schrieb:

You should discard this design, and probably the planner along with it. It’s hard to imagine a house design with worse starting conditions: You yourselves already find the orientation problematic and would prefer it smaller for cost reasons. The entire basement (and a void space that is not really missed) has already been reduced in size, but this was done after the initial concept. Surely you don’t really believe that just shifting a window here and rotating a door there will suddenly make this mess ready for construction. Besides, I get the impression that the house’s utility connections are built over. The “architect” is probably more of a draftsman for a home builder (which one could that be here?).

The plan certainly has its drawbacks (literally in terms of shadows), but we have not perceived it as critically so far. Is a complete redesign really necessary and even feasible? The orientation of the plot is fixed as it is, the building envelope is also predetermined, a garage is a must, and unfortunately, the plot narrows toward the lower end and widens out conically.

The architect is not affiliated with any building company but was independently commissioned to develop a plan on the basis of which we will tender. This approach is often recommended.

kronos215 schrieb:

Is a complete redesign really necessary and even feasible? The orientation of the plot is what it is, and the building envelope is fixed as well,

The building envelope is not visible in the drawing – but I also don’t understand why a redesign should exceed it. Yes, of course it should be fundamental – apparently unlike the previous one.

kronos215 schrieb:

The architect was hired independently, not by a construction company

If the unusual dimensions do not originate from the system of a house manufacturer, then they are worrying made-up measurements that further make me doubt the planner’s qualifications. Look up the forum search for the keyword “Pfuschertaschen.”

kronos215 schrieb:

to develop a plan based on which we will tender. This approach is often recommended

Tendering based on a preliminary design would be an expensive mistake. Where is such a path recommended?
Look at “Bauen jetzt” in my house building roadmap. Then complete “Module A” together with a (suitable!) architect and during the resting phase make the key decision. From the result you can decide whether to continue planning only performance phase 3 with the architect, and from performance phase 4 a house provider takes over, either timber or masonry, or whether the architect should complete the entire “Module B” as the next step. Tendering only happens in “Module C,” because for that you need detailed planning as a basis. Tendering based on the building permit / planning permission drawings can burn many times the amount of money that further planning would have cost (or rather: where it would have been well invested). An inexperienced tender greatly amplifies any planning deficiencies. And during the key decision phase you can find out, at low cost, whether you even “must” build an individual design.

---

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

Honestly, both of you?
I set the thread to watch, looked at the two floors separately, only skimmed the first lines of the opening post, read the post by @11ant, and took a closer look at the ground floor regarding one person’s claim that it could be mirrored and the other’s statement that the design is rubbish.
I considered it feasible (I’ll get to that tiny pantry only one meter deep (about 3 feet) or the mudroom that goes through freshly washed laundry later), but at first just got an initial impression and was only surprised by the staircase positioned across the room. Then of course there were missing sightlines (I expect a bit more from an architect’s design)... but all good: a good design can be modified.
Then I opened the attic floor plan and noticed the mistake: the staircase running horizontally literally cuts across and makes the attic a patchwork. Sleeping areas are quite disorganized and themselves a patchwork with the closets. The storage room can only be accessed by ducking.

I wouldn’t have placed the garage in the southwest. That’s the best side for natural light in the open living area. The 34-centimeter (about 13 inches) walls catch my eye. I wouldn’t even want to plan amateurishly under 40 centimeters (about 16 inches), since they’ll end up being 42 or thicker anyway.
There is a lot of space downstairs, but somehow hardly any upstairs.

So then I read the wishes and the post explaining why it is the way it is (I noted the views at the top and right side of the plan).

… and then I have to read something like this:

kronos215 schrieb:

The bedroom has to be planned there

… as if there were a law mandating a specific room layout. The bedroom is the worst-planned room in this forum in 2025. Still, it is not the reason why there is a lot of space downstairs but everything feels cramped, and why the design upstairs has basically lost out.

ypg schrieb:


.. as if a law would prescribe such a room layout. The bedroom is the worst designed room in this forum in 2025. Still, it is not the reason why there is a lot of space downstairs, but everything somehow feels cramped, and the upper floor design actually feels lost.

I wanted to write more about this decision. Unfortunately, a post can only be edited for 4 minutes.
The bedroom was supposed to be planned in this corner because behind the field on the right side, about 500m (550 yards) away, there is a main road that can be clearly heard depending on wind direction and humidity. I grew up near that street. As a child it was not disturbing, but later on it is. That’s why the bedroom was planned on the other side.

I don’t actually find the sightline in the living-dining area bad. I hear a lot of criticism, which I understand, but unfortunately don’t see suggestions on how it could be better solved.

We also don’t like the upper floor plan, so we are asking for input in this forum rather than immediately moving forward with a builder. To be honest, it’s a bit daunting to start a new plan on a whim, which will cost another mid-four-figure sum without knowing whether it will really be better under the given conditions.