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.
Here is the option with the stairs running horizontally according to the plan. I’ve increased the depth of the house and reduced the width accordingly. 10.20m (33.5 ft) should be close to the maximum to keep the ridge height around 9.50m (31.2 ft) with the given dimensions. It depends on the roof thickness, which only your general contractor (GC) knows.
This layout offers several advantages, for example:
This layout offers several advantages, for example:
- straight staircase – a favorite for many,
- the attic can be accessed from the same stair position,
- the attic has more standing height and could accommodate a real additional room (with proper doors),
- on the ground floor, your kitchen island can be wider (drawn at 2.10m x 0.80m (6 ft 11 in x 2 ft 7 in)),
- rectangular building shape without projections saves costs.
11ant schrieb:
Change the planner; this will be the highest-performing investment of your life. Has he even once considered the alternative proposals, for example those made by Katja?
You can’t make progress with patches. There must be agreement on the preliminary design before it is further refined into the detailed design. Unfortunately, as if by magic – hehe – emphasis has disappeared here, and distortions that change the meaning were already a major reason for my resignation last time. I want to emphasize again that I consider replacing the planner urgently necessary to save the project before it’s too late. The most recent plans in post #78 give me good reason to doubt that the alternative proposals (mainly from Katja) were ever seriously considered by the planner. Speaking into deaf ears is pointless; it’s a waste of time.
There should be nothing less than agreement on the preliminary design before the detailed design is developed.
A “preliminary design” is, mind you, not a “design that you still hope will be improved,” but an independent planning stage that, if skipped, will thoroughly affect the process and the final outcome.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K a t j a schrieb:
Here is the option with the staircase running horizontally to the plan. I gave the house more depth and reduced the width accordingly. The "planner" just has to copy this without errors, and it’s done. At least it would get my approval.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 16:35K a t j a schrieb:
Oh, and when you upload the plans, try not to cut off the dimensions. That’s inconvenient.Yeah, I noticed that too. Here are all of them. K
klabauter861420 Aug 2024 21:0111ant schrieb:
My question was which design version is meant by this "before," and how you planned to keep the ground floor as is.
The COVID lockdowns are over, nobody needs to have video conferences with their planner anymore, and certainly not a back-and-forth full of misunderstandings. By "superstructure," I meant that the house entries would be built beneath the garage floor leading into the heating closet behind the garage, covered by the same structure above. If that is already clear but the planner still draws a completely different scenario, this will cause trouble during construction at the latest. Nobody needs plans that force the builders to improvise from the start (which subsequent trades don’t know about and try to connect to the plan status).
No, don’t whine—demand loudly (blast the planner hard) until he stops resisting. A wall you consider a no-go is only the tip of the iceberg here; I can already foresee a (check forum search) "butcher’s house" scenario. I see a series of thoughtless oversights here (and take my warning about the retractable ladder seriously). Ladder rungs and stair treads can’t be compared. Once this botched work is built, you’ll wish you had chosen the "worse" option.
Change the planner—this will be the best investment you ever make. Has he even ever seen the alternative proposals, for example from Katja?
Patching won’t get you anywhere. Agreement must be reached on the preliminary design before it is further developed into the full design. K a t j a schrieb:
No, you’re missing 7cm (3 inches) at the knee wall and you’d still have a full 37cm (15 inches) up to the ridge. But okay, that’s not crucial for a first concept. I don’t find the design totally awful now. You’ve already mentioned some points yourself. What bothers me most is the main staircase— a 19.5cm (7.7 inches) rise has to be a joke. It’s often difficult to just add one more step later—you need the stairs right from the start. We already discussed the ladder up to the apex. Saying
doesn’t help anyone. Decide! Is this okay? How exactly should access to the attic apex look? It still hasn’t been shown. Should there be a door down below, or how will thermal separation be handled? Do you plan to heat the entire attic all the time? That can’t be right, or can it? Without a clear decision, you won’t get a meaningful outcome.
The rooms upstairs are quite clearly divided. If you move the office to the north, the staircase can only be on the south side. Then it would be at the bottom of the living room— which would be bad. You could try a horizontal arrangement again... no idea if that makes sense.
I think I mentioned before that you probably use the space better with a folding ladder in an attic hatch. But your planner’s “chicken ladder” is already somewhat comparable. 11ant schrieb:
I want to emphasize again here that replacing the planner is urgently necessary to save the project before it’s too late. The latest plans in post #78 make me seriously doubt that alternative proposals (mainly from Katja) were ever taken into account by the planner. Talking to deaf ears is pointless.
There should be nothing less than agreement on the preliminary design before the full design is developed.
A “preliminary design” is by no means a “design you still hope to improve,” but an independent planning stage that, if skipped, will cause serious problems in and on the final result. The following agreements were made:
- The upper floor layout should remain as in the original post: two children’s rooms on the right, office in the north, bedroom and bathroom on the left. The office in the north is only an option due to heating and disturbing sunlight on the screen on the south side. If there is a sensible way to avoid that in the south (other than keeping the blinds down all day), the office can also be in the south as in #39.
- The attic must provide storage space, i.e., minimal access via a hatch; it can also include a fixed staircase as a flexible option, which must be thermally separated.
- Two sketches should be made within a few days to reach agreement on the preliminary design before producing a complete design again.
- The staircase should have at least 16 steps with approximately a 17/29cm (6.7/11.4 inches) or maximum 18/27cm (7.1/10.6 inches) rise/run, and all technical equipment should be within the thermal envelope.
- Then work should continue based on these sketches in 1-2 meetings to develop a satisfactory preliminary design, which is then fully drawn as the design.
And for some magical reason, these points have not been implemented; it looks more like an internal communication problem to me (I had to wait several weeks again and got only one design). We still have one meeting this week, and then we will take the time to produce a proper preliminary design (also thanks to the brave help from @K a t j a and @ypg). If that still isn’t satisfactory, I will probably consider changing planners. I had actually planned to do detailed construction planning as well, to avoid the unfortunate experiences of other homeowners nearby (most only hire a planner up to the building permit / planning permission stage and then request offers from many general contractors with the approved plans—of course resulting in night and day differences in offers).
Question: Does only the general contractor know the roof thickness? Isn’t this determined during detailed construction planning?
Similar topics