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.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Exactly, it says in #90 first point:
"The upper floor layout should remain as in the original post," so see #1. Improvements mainly desired on the ground floor. This is basically a bad idea. You always need to develop both floors, as they are connected, for example, by the staircase.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Why can’t walls be built in the attic in #76? The question is whether there is enough space for a door. These are always just sketches anyway. We don’t know all the exact dimensions of your materials, heights, slopes, and other details 100%. That’s why we sometimes use common average values. You can see the 2m (6 ft 7 in) line. A door has a frame and you want to be able to open it too. At least 90cm (35 inches) of width should be available. So the question is if you can place a 2m (6 ft 7 in) high door centrally without needing to cut into the frame. This is partly why I wanted the 2m (6 ft 7 in) line marked at the highest point. But in my opinion your planner purposely omitted it to avoid opening that can of worms.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Exactly, it’s stated in #90 first point:
“The layout of the upper floor should remain as in the original post,” so see #1. Improvements are mainly desired for the ground floor. K a t j a schrieb:
That is basically a bad idea. Both floors always need to be developed because they are connected, for example, by the staircase. Oh dear. If only the ground floor was supposed to be improved, why was the upper floor redesigned so significantly? That doesn’t make much sense. Besides, I found release “Post #27” much more successful than release “Post #1.”
Yes, at least regarding the staircase, the “before” and “after” must be identical in order to change even just one floor. In “The Upper Floor Takes Priority” (external, but also here in most posts on this search term), I explain which floor is the “master” from a planning perspective and why. Some of my warning signals about the planner’s competence already went off with the many reinforced non-load-bearing walls on the upper floor (here actually: attic floor); see also “Lightweight Partitions in Solid Houses?” (and the related post “Plan Change: From Concrete to Wood Ceiling”).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
klabauter861421 Aug 2024 17:44K a t j a schrieb:
Among other reasons, I wanted to have the 2m (6.5 feet) line marked at the peak. But in my opinion, your planner deliberately left it out to avoid opening that can of worms.Understood, thank you. He marked it, but only in the cross-section and without any horizontal measurements.
K
klabauter861421 Aug 2024 23:07Clarification question: @K a t j a in #76 there are two attics, do both really belong to the house? One has the staircase arranged differently, how should I interpret this? And if the house dimensions have remained the same, how can the attic suddenly be deeper?
In #86 it says "same staircase position," but the staircase is on the opposite side in the hallway each time, or am I mistaken?
In #86 it says "same staircase position," but the staircase is on the opposite side in the hallway each time, or am I mistaken?
klabauter8614 schrieb:
Clarification question: @K a t j a in #76 there are two attics, do both really belong to it? One has the stairs arranged differently, how should I interpret that? These are two different floor plan versions shown. There is a text in between. That should be clear.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
And if the house dimensions stayed the same, how can the attic be suddenly lower? For the second one, I assumed a knee wall height of 1.20 m (4 feet). At that time, I did not realize that you needed a 34 cm (13 inch) ceiling structure and a 36 cm (14 inch) floor slab. So unfortunately, that won’t really work.
klabauter8614 schrieb:
In #86 it says "same stair position," but the stairs are on the other side of the hallway each time, or am I mistaken? The stairs are all aligned vertically; otherwise, you wouldn’t reach the upper floor. The wall is on the left side of the stair in the ground floor and on the right side in the upper floor.
K
klabauter861422 Aug 2024 12:59Ah thanks, I found my visual mistake. Of course, now it’s clear that the stairs are aligned vertically.
Doesn’t that also mean, based on the dimensions in the section, that with the current house size, it’s not realistically possible to build a properly finished attic with doors, walls, etc.? And that we need to finalize that first anyway (which you’ve probably been saying all along but it hasn’t fully sunk in yet)?
Doesn’t that also mean, based on the dimensions in the section, that with the current house size, it’s not realistically possible to build a properly finished attic with doors, walls, etc.? And that we need to finalize that first anyway (which you’ve probably been saying all along but it hasn’t fully sunk in yet)?
Similar topics