ᐅ Single-Family Home Floor Plan, 141 sqm – Any Obvious Weaknesses?
Created on: 28 Jan 2016 13:24
D
Dan8070
Hello everyone,
Attached is an initial preliminary design for a single-family house that we received after a first planning meeting with a construction company. After our "approval," we will receive the detailed offer.
North is at the top. Entrance is on the east side.
Within our possibilities and various compromises (it would have been nice to have a sliding door separating the living room, a larger storage room, and a slightly bigger bathroom to fit a built-in wardrobe), we are quite satisfied for the time being.
We have already requested that the stairwell window be enlarged from 2 meters to 3 meters (6.5 ft to 9.8 ft) in height, the front door to have the hinges reversed, the storage room window is still under discussion, the upstairs toilet may not be ideally placed, etc.
We would appreciate constructive feedback. Thank you very much!
Residents: 2 adults, 2 children (ages 1 and 10)
Development plan/restrictions: 2 stories, gable or hipped roof with 22-28% pitch
Plot size: 722 sqm (7,770 sq ft)
Slope: No
Parking spaces: 2
Number of stories: 2
Roof style: Hipped roof 22% pitch
Style: Townhouse?!?
Terrace facing south, entrance from the east
Homeowners’ requirements
Style, roof shape, building type
Basement, stories: basement plus 2 full floors
Number of occupants, ages
Space requirement for ground floor and first floor: approx. 65-70 sqm (700-750 sq ft) each
Office: none (nice to have, not a must)
Guest sleepers per year: 3-4
Number of dining seats: 6-8
Fireplace: YES (small)
Garage, carport: 1 single garage with an attached space for equipment/bikes
House design
Planning by: Planner from a construction company
What do you particularly like? Lots of space in the dining and living area, walk-in closet.
What don’t you like? Size of the hallway downstairs (too large?), storage too small, bathroom layout, bedroom somewhat too large.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: approx. 320,000 - 340,000 turnkey without floor finishes
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: 380,000
Preferred heating technology: Pellets/air heat pump (no gas on the property!)
If you have to give up some details/additions:
- What can you do without: Basically nothing anymore
- What can you not give up:
Attached is an initial preliminary design for a single-family house that we received after a first planning meeting with a construction company. After our "approval," we will receive the detailed offer.
North is at the top. Entrance is on the east side.
Within our possibilities and various compromises (it would have been nice to have a sliding door separating the living room, a larger storage room, and a slightly bigger bathroom to fit a built-in wardrobe), we are quite satisfied for the time being.
We have already requested that the stairwell window be enlarged from 2 meters to 3 meters (6.5 ft to 9.8 ft) in height, the front door to have the hinges reversed, the storage room window is still under discussion, the upstairs toilet may not be ideally placed, etc.
We would appreciate constructive feedback. Thank you very much!
Residents: 2 adults, 2 children (ages 1 and 10)
Development plan/restrictions: 2 stories, gable or hipped roof with 22-28% pitch
Plot size: 722 sqm (7,770 sq ft)
Slope: No
Parking spaces: 2
Number of stories: 2
Roof style: Hipped roof 22% pitch
Style: Townhouse?!?
Terrace facing south, entrance from the east
Homeowners’ requirements
Style, roof shape, building type
Basement, stories: basement plus 2 full floors
Number of occupants, ages
Space requirement for ground floor and first floor: approx. 65-70 sqm (700-750 sq ft) each
Office: none (nice to have, not a must)
Guest sleepers per year: 3-4
Number of dining seats: 6-8
Fireplace: YES (small)
Garage, carport: 1 single garage with an attached space for equipment/bikes
House design
Planning by: Planner from a construction company
What do you particularly like? Lots of space in the dining and living area, walk-in closet.
What don’t you like? Size of the hallway downstairs (too large?), storage too small, bathroom layout, bedroom somewhat too large.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: approx. 320,000 - 340,000 turnkey without floor finishes
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: 380,000
Preferred heating technology: Pellets/air heat pump (no gas on the property!)
If you have to give up some details/additions:
- What can you do without: Basically nothing anymore
- What can you not give up:
B
Bauexperte30 Jan 2016 10:11ypg schrieb:
- I wouldn’t rely on the statement from the builder / general contractor (possibly a seller giving a generalization) You skeptical Thomasine
In my opinion, the utility connections will be delivered to the front basement area by the provider and then distributed from there. I think it might be a bit more expensive for the original poster, but probably not more than if the providers were to deliver directly to the rear of the property. The only downside: the pipes run _longer_ beneath the basement ceiling than in a typical building project.
Regards, Bauexperte
I believe this is often a conflict... many things can be done better and more attractively, but that also means more planning, higher risk of errors, or increased costs—whether it's additional meters, precise positioning of switches, spotlights, tile joints, or roof connections.
The client has complete freedom of choice; however, they often do not want to pay for it. Requesting changes afterward in their favor without extra costs, with arguments like "I assumed it would be like this" or "at Aunt Erna’s house, it’s done that way," simply does not work. The contractor has calculated the project based on their assumptions—often opting for simpler solutions to remain competitively priced—otherwise, the client would have gone to the next provider; which is entirely legitimate.
The only criticism that might sometimes be directed at the planners is that they do not provide enough explanations or present available options; but often even here, perhaps based on experience, because clients want gold but are only willing to pay for copper. For example, we were often only offered mid-range products—such as bathroom furniture; which I am mostly satisfied with because the truth is that the premium range looks nicer, but we currently cannot or do not want to afford it. If we had been offered the premium range, both sides would have simply invested more time and ended up frustrated. Sellers and planners are, of course, not clairvoyants but experienced professionals who sometimes also misjudge their clients.
The client has complete freedom of choice; however, they often do not want to pay for it. Requesting changes afterward in their favor without extra costs, with arguments like "I assumed it would be like this" or "at Aunt Erna’s house, it’s done that way," simply does not work. The contractor has calculated the project based on their assumptions—often opting for simpler solutions to remain competitively priced—otherwise, the client would have gone to the next provider; which is entirely legitimate.
The only criticism that might sometimes be directed at the planners is that they do not provide enough explanations or present available options; but often even here, perhaps based on experience, because clients want gold but are only willing to pay for copper. For example, we were often only offered mid-range products—such as bathroom furniture; which I am mostly satisfied with because the truth is that the premium range looks nicer, but we currently cannot or do not want to afford it. If we had been offered the premium range, both sides would have simply invested more time and ended up frustrated. Sellers and planners are, of course, not clairvoyants but experienced professionals who sometimes also misjudge their clients.
B
Bauexperte30 Jan 2016 11:36@BeHaEIJa
Topic clarification – I completely understand your point of view.
The downside: never before have I “read” so often as last year – there is a lack of courage for open communication: “their advice/clarification/support was the best of all. It really helped me in choosing my provider.”
Best regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
Topic clarification – I completely understand your point of view.
The downside: never before have I “read” so often as last year – there is a lack of courage for open communication: “their advice/clarification/support was the best of all. It really helped me in choosing my provider.”
Best regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
Therefore, also the
...I can understand the seller’s side very well.
I believe that, in the medium term, advice will always come at a cost.
Where it doesn’t, it is either fully biased (company representatives at electronics stores) or occurs in the luxury segment – alternatively linked to specialized contractors – meaning advice is only provided once the sale is certain and only covers what needs to be clarified.
BeHaElJa schrieb:
had both parties simply invested more time and been frustrated
...I can understand the seller’s side very well.
I believe that, in the medium term, advice will always come at a cost.
Where it doesn’t, it is either fully biased (company representatives at electronics stores) or occurs in the luxury segment – alternatively linked to specialized contractors – meaning advice is only provided once the sale is certain and only covers what needs to be clarified.
I am a car salesperson myself and understand that some consultations between customers can be brief and not very detailed. However, if I have an appointment, I take the time to thoroughly inform the customer about the pros and cons to the best of my knowledge and conscience. If a customer then decides against a certain option or financial service, that is fine—that is their choice. But at least they had the option.
As a building client, I expect the same standard. Not everyone shares their design in a forum. If I am presented with a more comfortable solution (even if it is more expensive), I want to have the opportunity to make that decision myself. If I only find out after moving in that there had been other possibilities, I am disappointed.
As a building client, I expect the same standard. Not everyone shares their design in a forum. If I am presented with a more comfortable solution (even if it is more expensive), I want to have the opportunity to make that decision myself. If I only find out after moving in that there had been other possibilities, I am disappointed.
Bauexperte schrieb:
You doubtful Thomasine
In my opinion, the technical equipment is supplied by the utility provider to the front basement and then distributed from there. In my opinion, this is somewhat more expensive for the original poster, but probably not more than if the utilities were delivered directly to the back of the property. The only downside: the pipes run _longer_ beneath the basement ceiling than in a typical construction project.
Regards, BauexpertePlease, no ‘h’
The fact is that it is possible to install the technical systems so that the house functions comfortably. House sellers make the purchase price attractive, so additional costs are usually unwelcome, as they lead future homeowners to calculate whether this or that still fits within their budget. In my opinion, homebuilders often choose the easy way—the complicated way has to be fought for, often without extra costs.
When we built, we asked very few questions, which was partly a mistake. Therefore, my advice is: ask questions, follow up!