ᐅ Floor Plan Feedback Single-Family Home 140 sqm Two Full Stories

wiltshire schrieb:

Why shouldn’t someone treat themselves to something they find beautiful if they are willing to accept less elsewhere?

Maybe, and not only that, because aesthetics quickly become secondary when, for various reasons, they are not visible. For example, if they are obscured by clutter or location. You forget that the original poster cares about having a functional house.
I tend to focus more on the overall picture rather than just one detail. The whole package should be right. If it even comes with an extra touch like a ribbon and flowers, that’s a bonus. But happiness won’t come if only the packaging looks nice.

Milka0105 schrieb:

To be honest, I don’t want to spend thousands of euros again. I can see how my floor plan apparently causes problems. And I also read in other threads that architects planned and the drafts have many mistakes and weaknesses.

Did you go to a “@Gerddieter warns architects,” meaning a discount architect who charges a princely five or even eight thousand euros just for “phases 1 to 3” of floor plan sketches or something like that?

You actually shouldn’t even have a design made, but only a preliminary draft (for discussion, further refinement, decision-making, and possibly a building permit / planning permission inquiry). A design is not “further” or “better” than a preliminary draft – it is worse because it is unsuitable (and also more expensive). Many young architects from the “CAD generation” don’t understand the technique of multi-stage design development. They immediately shift into high gear and produce drafts carelessly and without any concept, like Monday painters following the “infinite monkey” method rather than working academically, technically, and conceptually precise. This costs clients a lot of time and money and leads to no usable results (because it simply can’t). Reading my house-building roadmap costs nothing (available online 24/7, no paywall), and if anything is unclear, it still costs nothing (except a phone call to the editorial hotline; nowadays almost everyone has a flat-rate landline). After that, you go to one architect (not as a substitute to charlatans, but to as many as money, time, and patience allow) and only complete “Module A” (because “more” makes no sense before the resting period and decision-making).

ypg schrieb:

I dare to guess that almost every (second) general contractor or building contractor offers a functioning (cost-neutral) floor plan as a standard house design. It may be that a wall could be moved here and there, and that the standard design might be a little flawed in one, two, or three places, but it would still work better than this one.

Yes, that adds to it: typical families with two adults and two children, without a slope in the land, don’t necessarily need an individual design.

Bertram100 schrieb:

A second kitchen is really only worthwhile in exceptional cases, such as for hunters, farmers, or serious baking enthusiasts. For everyday average living, they are completely useless. Because you also have to keep them tidy, or else the chaos goes unnoticed and everything becomes much more difficult. It is better to keep order in the main kitchen right away.

Everyday meals are “whipped up” by a single cook without a pastry chef or even a “brigade.” A visitor-facing kitchen and a mess kitchen are generally one too many, especially given a size cap (whether it is a 140 m² (1500 sq ft) self-imposed limit by the original poster or a 160 m² (1700 sq ft) funding limit, it’s the same either way).

wiltshire schrieb:

Space requirements for stairs: Straight staircases in small houses are always criticized here.

A single-flight straight staircase has to be affordable for a house, and a “small” house can’t afford this. To risk repeating myself: this shape of staircase is first of all a bottleneck for any floor plan and requires (similarly to symmetry, but together even more) about twelve meters (39 feet) of house width on every affected floor (in the attic, therefore, approximately between the 2m lines). Develop a good staircase from the upper exit going backward; this way it will most reliably find place and shape.

I see here a plot that fans out (and its building envelope does this as well, but the floor plan does not). So the complained-about too-narrow bathroom could be avoided. What is the nonsense of ignoring phase 1 and starting right away with “designs” that are just as useless as the others (and this could continue in the forty-seventh iteration)?

wiltshire schrieb:

I saw that too. It only causes confusion.

Image 3864 in post #37 is nonsense as well: it shows the plot outline (outer frame, north orientation unknown), and inside it (probably incorrectly, since a 3m (10 feet) and 7m (23 feet) building setback are shown at the bottom and top of the plan respectively) the building envelope.

---

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

wiltshire schrieb:

The nice straight staircase is worth the reduced space to the homeowners. Living quality is created not only by space and functionality but also by aesthetics.

The straight staircase in the original post also means a rather small cloakroom. The aesthetics are then affected by additional storage space that somehow fits under the stairs. The staircase will also just pass by the door to the utility room, so this needs to be carefully planned. That’s why it’s always a challenge.

Personally, I would actually like the half-landing staircase from the second example of the original poster, not necessarily in that position, but the staircase itself, yes. 😉

ypg schrieb:

If it also comes with a matching set of ribbons and flowers, then it’s a delight. But you won’t feel that delight if only the packaging looks nice.

That is absolutely correct. The function must be preserved. I consider that given. Space is lost, the hallway is narrow, the cloakroom area is tight. All true. You have to be able to deal with that, meaning not allowing too much stuff. Not an easy task with two children—I remember all too well our too-small hallway in the terraced house.

And at the same time:
I would consider it a waste of money to buy something that goes against my aesthetic sense. This is not a question of money but of outlook on life. I understand that it can be just as valid to see this differently.
Once the disadvantages have been identified, and they have, a decision can be made for the less practical option for very good reasons. This is about a mindset that cannot be judged from the outside if it does not impose anything negative on others.

And yes, a messy room with the right proportions still looks better than a tidy room that lacks them. As I said, people experience life very differently. In custom homebuilding, the decisive factor from my point of view is that the house is tailored to the lifestyle of its residents. Deviations from the norm count particularly here.

Anyone aiming for a "normal" life does not need a custom home. There are excellent off-the-shelf concepts that can lead to good results with a few inexpensive adjustments. A custom home does not have a higher value than another; if it is good, it simply meets the individual needs of the owners better. Often a custom home suffers a higher loss in value because it is harder to find buyers who think "equally individually" when reselling. This is explicitly not about better or worse, but about effective or not. This question can only be answered by @Milka0105 herself.

So, I just took some time to think everything through again. I still like the floor plan.

However, I tried to incorporate your suggestions into a different layout. I drew it myself, just so you know.

For now, I only drew the ground floor. My question is: does the floor plan work like this?

The entrance area is only 1.75 meters (5.7 feet) wide, and right after entering the wall appears at 2.25 meters (7.4 feet). It might feel a bit cramped, especially combined with the staircase.

I also looked at other posts and included a rotated staircase to separate the entrance area from the dirty zone.

Does anyone have experience with a layout where the stairs are immediately visible on the right upon entering? Does it feel tight? Or could that even be turned into a great coat and shoe storage area? Because I currently lack a proper cloakroom in the floor plan.

The hallway does not really offer any additional space for furniture or storage.
The guest toilet is small but should be feasible. I have not drawn anything in the utility room yet; that should be checked later for actual feasibility.

The passage to the living/dining area is only 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) wide and also serves as the access to or from the staircase. Does that work? According to the configurator, I drew the staircase as 3 by 2 meters (10 by 6.5 feet) with 15 steps, a tread depth of 25.2 cm (9.9 inches) and a riser height of 18.9 cm (7.4 inches). I would really appreciate your feedback on this as well.

The kitchen is now larger, 3.5 by 3.5 meters (11.5 by 11.5 feet). The pantry remains because I want a storage room!
I would only give that up for a bigger utility room if the utility room does not work as it is.

Otherwise, the table with chairs and the sofa we own and plan to keep are drawn with the correct dimensions.

The house now has overall dimensions of 10.2 by 9 meters (33.5 by 29.5 feet).
The previous floor plan was 10.49 by 8.74 meters (34.4 by 28.7 feet), so the same footprint is maintained.
All interior walls are 24 cm (9.4 inches) thick. Some might be changed to 11 cm (4.3 inches) thickness. In the end, this would only enlarge some rooms a bit, so I planned for the worst case.

A north arrow is included. I hope I considered everything and am open to criticism. Thanks!

Without seeing the upper floor, I can’t properly assess this.
It’s great that you included the kitchen in the plan. A 1m (3 ft 3 in) walkway would be too narrow for me. The smaller the kitchen, the more important it is to get help from an experienced kitchen designer.
Thinking radically: the partition wall between the hallway and kitchen is dispensable. Consider how it would be to have more countertop space instead of that wall. The whole kitchen feels more open.
If I understand correctly, the utility room becomes slightly smaller, and the "mudroom" function for entering with a wet dog or boots is lost in the new design.
I still prefer the first design, but I wasn’t really a strong critic anyway.