ᐅ Single-family house floor plan, 1 full story, utilities and natural lighting
Created on: 22 Jul 2024 08:21
K
klabauter8614
Hello, I would like to gather feedback on the floor plan in order to finalize the design. We don’t have sections or elevations yet, but all other drawings are attached (house shown schematically on the site plan). Thanks.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 473m² (5,089 ft²)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: maximum 2 without garage
Number of floors: 1 full floor
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style
Orientation: Roof facing NNE - SSW
Maximum heights / limits: eave height 4.2m (13.8 ft), ridge height 9.5m (31.2 ft)
Further requirements: only renewable energy sources, infiltration trench for stormwater
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, floors: no basement (groundwater level at 1m (3.3 ft) depth), 1 full floor
Number of occupants, ages: 4, aged 40-40-7-2 years
Space needs on ground floor and upper floor: Guesst room on the ground floor, office upstairs
Office use: family use or home office? Home office
Number of guest stays per year: 2 nights per week by one parent (also for coming years), parents-in-law stay several weeks annually
Open or closed layout
Traditional or modern construction
Open kitchen, kitchen island: semi-open (sliding door), kitchen island
Number of fixed dining seats: 6 fixed, expandable
Fireplace: no
Music/speaker wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: herb garden
Additional wishes/special points/daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions
House Design
Planner: synergy between architect and client, now 4th draft
What do you particularly like? Why? Guest room and WC + shower, similar existing layout already working (although a bed is drawn, it is actually a sofa bed), office on the north side, guest room size more than sufficient, wardrobe by the entrance, living room bright, washing machine + dryer upstairs.
What don’t you like? Why?
- Utility room is half unusable due to wardrobe protrusion (which is actually sensible) so it is too small. Attic storage needs to be moved from the garage into the thermal envelope inside the utility room, indoor unit could stay there. The mechanical ventilation system would also need to be installed in the utility room. Possible solution: enlarge kitchen to the rear and expand utility room accordingly. This would make the house larger though. No other solutions discussed yet.
- Stairs are too steep; architect now proposes a rise/run of 17.2cm/26cm (6.8"/10.2"), which may be borderline regarding comfortable step depth.
- Daylight in children’s rooms might be low due to west-facing windows and roughly 12.5% window-to-floor area ratio; simulation might be needed. Skylights wouldn’t significantly improve this; only a dormer and smaller gable windows would.
- As drawn, the kitchen island layout is not suitable for me; passage from utility room too narrow, should be moved to the opposite side, with sink and window to the left.
- Air conditioning would still be needed in the bedroom and children’s rooms, but with the current window and furniture arrangement this looks impractical.
- Shower upstairs located under sloped ceiling, not necessary but a minor point.
- Skylight in guest WC is not at head height, should be slightly higher, also a minor detail.
- Bathroom door upstairs should open outwards.
- Storage under the stairs is still missing.
- Partition wall in garage is unnecessary.
Cost estimate from architect/planner: unknown
Personal price limit for house including fixtures: 650,000
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you must give up something, which features or extensions
- Can you give up: walk-in closet
- Cannot give up: office, guest room
Why is the design like it is now?
Own design developed based on space requirements plus architect’s counter proposal
What do you consider especially good or problematic?
Main issues to resolve are utility room + technical space and daylight.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 473m² (5,089 ft²)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: maximum 2 without garage
Number of floors: 1 full floor
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style
Orientation: Roof facing NNE - SSW
Maximum heights / limits: eave height 4.2m (13.8 ft), ridge height 9.5m (31.2 ft)
Further requirements: only renewable energy sources, infiltration trench for stormwater
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type
Basement, floors: no basement (groundwater level at 1m (3.3 ft) depth), 1 full floor
Number of occupants, ages: 4, aged 40-40-7-2 years
Space needs on ground floor and upper floor: Guesst room on the ground floor, office upstairs
Office use: family use or home office? Home office
Number of guest stays per year: 2 nights per week by one parent (also for coming years), parents-in-law stay several weeks annually
Open or closed layout
Traditional or modern construction
Open kitchen, kitchen island: semi-open (sliding door), kitchen island
Number of fixed dining seats: 6 fixed, expandable
Fireplace: no
Music/speaker wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: herb garden
Additional wishes/special points/daily routine, including reasons for preferences or exclusions
House Design
Planner: synergy between architect and client, now 4th draft
What do you particularly like? Why? Guest room and WC + shower, similar existing layout already working (although a bed is drawn, it is actually a sofa bed), office on the north side, guest room size more than sufficient, wardrobe by the entrance, living room bright, washing machine + dryer upstairs.
What don’t you like? Why?
- Utility room is half unusable due to wardrobe protrusion (which is actually sensible) so it is too small. Attic storage needs to be moved from the garage into the thermal envelope inside the utility room, indoor unit could stay there. The mechanical ventilation system would also need to be installed in the utility room. Possible solution: enlarge kitchen to the rear and expand utility room accordingly. This would make the house larger though. No other solutions discussed yet.
- Stairs are too steep; architect now proposes a rise/run of 17.2cm/26cm (6.8"/10.2"), which may be borderline regarding comfortable step depth.
- Daylight in children’s rooms might be low due to west-facing windows and roughly 12.5% window-to-floor area ratio; simulation might be needed. Skylights wouldn’t significantly improve this; only a dormer and smaller gable windows would.
- As drawn, the kitchen island layout is not suitable for me; passage from utility room too narrow, should be moved to the opposite side, with sink and window to the left.
- Air conditioning would still be needed in the bedroom and children’s rooms, but with the current window and furniture arrangement this looks impractical.
- Shower upstairs located under sloped ceiling, not necessary but a minor point.
- Skylight in guest WC is not at head height, should be slightly higher, also a minor detail.
- Bathroom door upstairs should open outwards.
- Storage under the stairs is still missing.
- Partition wall in garage is unnecessary.
Cost estimate from architect/planner: unknown
Personal price limit for house including fixtures: 650,000
Preferred heating technology: air-source heat pump
If you must give up something, which features or extensions
- Can you give up: walk-in closet
- Cannot give up: office, guest room
Why is the design like it is now?
Own design developed based on space requirements plus architect’s counter proposal
What do you consider especially good or problematic?
Main issues to resolve are utility room + technical space and daylight.
K
klabauter86141 Aug 2024 08:35K a t j a schrieb:
Actually, only because south is, as far as I know, at the top left on the plan, which means more light in the kids’ rooms. There was also the option to use part of the garage roof as an access point/balcony for the children, but that’s rather pointless. So it’s basically the same on both sides – swapping should be possible.
Maybe it’s also possible to do the front without a gable – the key issue is the staircase slope and the current bathroom door. That would need to be calculated. Then the gable or dormer could be moved to the back for the office without additional costs.I thought so too, only that the kids are around more in the afternoon and then the sun should be at the top right on the plan. But okay, good to know we wanted the same thing.I understand the bathroom door issue because of the roof slope, but I don’t get the connection between the staircase slope and additional costs.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
I understand the bathroom door due to the sloping roof, but I don’t get the slope and how that relates to additional costs.I can’t say immediately whether the slope of the first flight of stairs from the starting point runs into the sloping roof and if headroom might be tight there. That would need to be calculated. That’s what I meant.Regarding the additional costs: Your original plan includes a dormer. For us here, that means it’s included in the overall price. Whether it’s at the front, back, or elsewhere on the house shouldn’t affect the cost. So if you just move it from the front to the back, it stays cost-neutral. If you add an extra one (for example, for the office), the cost will increase.
K
klabauter86141 Aug 2024 13:06ypg schrieb:
Here is my ground floor plan again. The upper floor is similar to @K a t j a’s, just with a bay window corner, but you could use Katja’s plan and skip the bay window.
The house with 95sqm (1023 sq ft) on the ground floor is too large for the budget. @K a t j a’s should be around 100sqm (1076 sq ft).
The attic stairs can be placed above the other staircase.
My software can only display roofs and dormers in a limited way. @ypg The entrance definitely looks better; overall, the front entrance seems the most promising. On the other hand, the kitchen-dining-living area looks like a Tetris-slalom layout, which comes across as awkward. And I haven’t seen the upper floor yet. I had actually expected you to develop your own improvement suggestion from #4. That one was much more promising.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Compared to that, the kitchen-dining-living area looks like a Tetris-slalom landscape, which appears awkward. Viewed from a stylish house – but they had an open space and an open staircase in the dining area. Not Tetris, but well zoned!
K
klabauter86142 Aug 2024 11:14K a t j a schrieb:
I can’t say offhand whether the slope in the first stair landing runs toward the roof slope at the start, and if headroom might be tight there. That would need to be calculated. That’s what I meant.
Regarding the additional costs: Your original plan includes a dormer. That means it’s included in the total price as far as we’re concerned. Whether it’s at the front, back, or elsewhere on the house shouldn’t affect the cost. So, if you just move it from front to back, it remains cost-neutral. If you add an extra one (for example, for the office), it will increase the cost. Ah, okay, thanks. That would also mean that the conservatory in your design causes extra costs, with only minimal savings compared to the standard conservatory.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Ah ok thanks. That would also mean the conservatory in your design causes additional costs, with minimal savings compared to a standard living room.Yes, such a conservatory probably adds extra cost. However, we cannot know exactly what your priorities are or what your main contractor would charge for it. In the design, you can simply leave it out and build an open terrace instead. I included it to show the option and because, of course, it looks nicer. But something like that could also be added later.Similar topics