ᐅ Single-family home floor plan of approximately 140 m² for discussion
Created on: 23 Apr 2018 21:41
P
Phobos83
Good evening,
after reading along for a while, I’d finally like to start a thread myself and share our current floor plan for discussion, beginning with the details:
Development Plan/Restrictions:
Plot size: 961 m² (0.24 acres)
Slope: yes, about 3 m (10 feet) over the approximately 40 m (131 feet) slope to the south
Building envelope, building line, boundaries, orientation: see drawing
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof style: gable roof
Client Requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: classic detached single-family house with a gable roof
Basement, floors: basement, 1.5 floors
Number of people, ages: two adults (each 34 years old), two children (0.7 and 3 years)
Space needs on ground floor: kitchen/dining, living room, guest toilet, office
Upper floor: bedroom, 2 children's rooms + bathroom
Office: mainly for family use
Overnight guests per year: negligible
Open or closed layout: open living area, closed hallway
Conservative or modern construction: conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen without island
Number of dining seats: 4
Fireplace: yes
Music/stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage, see plans
Utility garden, greenhouse: to be added later for sure
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, gerne auch Begründungen, warum dieses oder das nicht sein soll:
It is important to us to have a pantry accessible from the kitchen as well as a small utility room in or adjacent to the bathroom, to do laundry where it is generated.
Further wishes: access through the garage and a ground-level entrance to the basement,
plus a fireplace, and a functional office on the ground floor
House Design:
Who designed the plan: planner from a construction company
What do you particularly like? Why?
- Kitchen/pantry, garage access, “fair” room distribution upstairs, basement access
What do you not like? Why?
- ratio of office to living area, staircase, bathroom layout
Price estimate according to architect/planner: about $350,000 including basement and garage, mid-level finishing standard
Personal price limit for house including fittings: close to being reached
Preferred heating system: gas + solar + fireplace (water-based)
If you have to give up something, which features or expansions?
The office could, if necessary, (as currently depicted in the draft) also be located in the basement.
Why did the design turn out as it is now? For example:
Based on a rough sketch and our wishes.
What do you think makes it especially good or bad?
It definitely tries to accommodate all wishes, but we feel the overall concept is still not quite right.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
The living room feels too small to us; we’d prefer to take some space from the office. Main problem: the staircase and access get in the way.
Regarding the history:
We received our first draft about two months ago, which was a promising start. However, after two revisions, we feel somewhat stuck. Increasing the floor plan size from 8.5 x 10.5 m (28 x 34.4 feet) to 9 x 11 m (29.5 x 36 feet) to allow more flexibility has not really worked on the ground floor. The office is now bigger, but we still don’t fully like the living room area. We would have preferred to gain more space so that the living room extends deeper around the corner near the fireplace—especially since the sliding door towards the kitchen was removed. Should we reposition the staircase differently and keep it more open, or route access through the living room? The large office has the advantage of being usable as an additional (children’s) room if necessary. But since the design is basically final, less space could also suffice here.
Upstairs, the rooms are certainly spacious enough now. However, the bathroom raises the question of whether the access with another door is well thought out. In the very first draft, the small utility room was completely separate; in the second, it was removed due to space constraints. In any case, we prefer a “T-layout” of toilet/shower/sink, so this area will still need some adjustment.
Unfortunately, I can only show the latest exterior design. For the basement, I would prefer to relocate the entrance (sheltered) under the terrace.
That’s the current situation. I have uploaded the two drafts for ground and upper floors for comparison.
We are open to advice, suggestions, and of course criticism. At the moment, we wonder if we are simply trying to fit too much into a house of this size and are missing the forest for the trees. Therefore, an objective external perspective would be greatly appreciated.
after reading along for a while, I’d finally like to start a thread myself and share our current floor plan for discussion, beginning with the details:
Development Plan/Restrictions:
Plot size: 961 m² (0.24 acres)
Slope: yes, about 3 m (10 feet) over the approximately 40 m (131 feet) slope to the south
Building envelope, building line, boundaries, orientation: see drawing
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof style: gable roof
Client Requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: classic detached single-family house with a gable roof
Basement, floors: basement, 1.5 floors
Number of people, ages: two adults (each 34 years old), two children (0.7 and 3 years)
Space needs on ground floor: kitchen/dining, living room, guest toilet, office
Upper floor: bedroom, 2 children's rooms + bathroom
Office: mainly for family use
Overnight guests per year: negligible
Open or closed layout: open living area, closed hallway
Conservative or modern construction: conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen without island
Number of dining seats: 4
Fireplace: yes
Music/stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage, see plans
Utility garden, greenhouse: to be added later for sure
Other wishes/special features/daily routine, gerne auch Begründungen, warum dieses oder das nicht sein soll:
It is important to us to have a pantry accessible from the kitchen as well as a small utility room in or adjacent to the bathroom, to do laundry where it is generated.
Further wishes: access through the garage and a ground-level entrance to the basement,
plus a fireplace, and a functional office on the ground floor
House Design:
Who designed the plan: planner from a construction company
What do you particularly like? Why?
- Kitchen/pantry, garage access, “fair” room distribution upstairs, basement access
What do you not like? Why?
- ratio of office to living area, staircase, bathroom layout
Price estimate according to architect/planner: about $350,000 including basement and garage, mid-level finishing standard
Personal price limit for house including fittings: close to being reached
Preferred heating system: gas + solar + fireplace (water-based)
If you have to give up something, which features or expansions?
The office could, if necessary, (as currently depicted in the draft) also be located in the basement.
Why did the design turn out as it is now? For example:
Based on a rough sketch and our wishes.
What do you think makes it especially good or bad?
It definitely tries to accommodate all wishes, but we feel the overall concept is still not quite right.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan, summarized in 130 characters?
The living room feels too small to us; we’d prefer to take some space from the office. Main problem: the staircase and access get in the way.
Regarding the history:
We received our first draft about two months ago, which was a promising start. However, after two revisions, we feel somewhat stuck. Increasing the floor plan size from 8.5 x 10.5 m (28 x 34.4 feet) to 9 x 11 m (29.5 x 36 feet) to allow more flexibility has not really worked on the ground floor. The office is now bigger, but we still don’t fully like the living room area. We would have preferred to gain more space so that the living room extends deeper around the corner near the fireplace—especially since the sliding door towards the kitchen was removed. Should we reposition the staircase differently and keep it more open, or route access through the living room? The large office has the advantage of being usable as an additional (children’s) room if necessary. But since the design is basically final, less space could also suffice here.
Upstairs, the rooms are certainly spacious enough now. However, the bathroom raises the question of whether the access with another door is well thought out. In the very first draft, the small utility room was completely separate; in the second, it was removed due to space constraints. In any case, we prefer a “T-layout” of toilet/shower/sink, so this area will still need some adjustment.
Unfortunately, I can only show the latest exterior design. For the basement, I would prefer to relocate the entrance (sheltered) under the terrace.
That’s the current situation. I have uploaded the two drafts for ground and upper floors for comparison.
We are open to advice, suggestions, and of course criticism. At the moment, we wonder if we are simply trying to fit too much into a house of this size and are missing the forest for the trees. Therefore, an objective external perspective would be greatly appreciated.
I would keep the dining table directly in front of the kitchen work surface and possibly move the patio door slightly to the left. This will depend on which type of wood stove fits best and how far it extends into the room. As mentioned, we still need to discuss this with the kitchen planner to see what works.
The knee wall on the upper floor should not be an issue, as it is over 2m (6.6 ft) at the shower entrance. However, as mentioned, the fireplace in the bedroom is inconvenient and will need to be relocated.
The knee wall on the upper floor should not be an issue, as it is over 2m (6.6 ft) at the shower entrance. However, as mentioned, the fireplace in the bedroom is inconvenient and will need to be relocated.
Yay,
we have spent a lot of time over the past months on selections, quotes, financing, etc. In this context, we recently finally got an appointment regarding Bayernlabo at the district office, where of course the plan also plays a crucial role.
The conclusion was that, for us at least, the interest subsidy program could be an option. The square meters just about qualify, although they usually only support "children’s rooms up to 15 m² (160.7 sq ft)" (which apparently leaves some room for discretion). That’s why the topic of a third children’s room came up, which could also be considered if there is at least "in principle a plan to have more children."
Against this background, we brought this up in last week’s meeting with the builder and wanted to have an alternative option in the upper floor planned to see if it even makes sense. At first glance, I really liked the idea, but after a closer look, we are no longer so sure if we won’t end up regretting this solution.
So here again are the current floor plans with questions/explanations. We would appreciate any optimization ideas from your side and would like to submit the application in the next few weeks to be able to start in spring.
Basement:
So far, I am quite happy with it; maybe we’ll still include a small window next to the exterior door in “Basement I,” even if it will be shaded by the terrace. Do you think 14.99 m² (161 sq ft) is enough for the technical room (gas system + buffer tank + ventilation)? Washing machine/laundry appliances don’t need to go in there; I have no idea why the draftsman was so creative there.
Ground floor:
We are quite satisfied with the “L” shape for kitchen/living with the corner window. The idea of a separate office was discarded – if needed, you can just create a small desk niche like the example shown. The kitchen proportions still need some adjustment – the long side shouldn’t go right up to the patio door, as it looks far too long in the drawing. I wanted to have that corrected as well, even though it doesn’t affect the approval.
Upper floor:
I have attached the current and last draft for comparison here. I think both have their appeal – now, putting aside any subsidies or possible plans for more children:
In the old draft (OG4a), I like the clear structure and what I find a very successful (fair) layout. The new one (OG5) apparently offers more flexibility at first glance, whether for an additional child, a guest room, an office, or if needed later to move the washing machine/laundry appliances upstairs.
However, the latter won’t help me if the other two children’s rooms no longer function properly. The knee wall of about 2 m (6.6 ft) height, for example, does not allow you to place wardrobes freely. Regarding the beds, the small light strips on the south side could maybe still be shifted somewhat…
What do you think as outsiders about the two options?
we have spent a lot of time over the past months on selections, quotes, financing, etc. In this context, we recently finally got an appointment regarding Bayernlabo at the district office, where of course the plan also plays a crucial role.
The conclusion was that, for us at least, the interest subsidy program could be an option. The square meters just about qualify, although they usually only support "children’s rooms up to 15 m² (160.7 sq ft)" (which apparently leaves some room for discretion). That’s why the topic of a third children’s room came up, which could also be considered if there is at least "in principle a plan to have more children."
Against this background, we brought this up in last week’s meeting with the builder and wanted to have an alternative option in the upper floor planned to see if it even makes sense. At first glance, I really liked the idea, but after a closer look, we are no longer so sure if we won’t end up regretting this solution.
So here again are the current floor plans with questions/explanations. We would appreciate any optimization ideas from your side and would like to submit the application in the next few weeks to be able to start in spring.
Basement:
So far, I am quite happy with it; maybe we’ll still include a small window next to the exterior door in “Basement I,” even if it will be shaded by the terrace. Do you think 14.99 m² (161 sq ft) is enough for the technical room (gas system + buffer tank + ventilation)? Washing machine/laundry appliances don’t need to go in there; I have no idea why the draftsman was so creative there.
Ground floor:
We are quite satisfied with the “L” shape for kitchen/living with the corner window. The idea of a separate office was discarded – if needed, you can just create a small desk niche like the example shown. The kitchen proportions still need some adjustment – the long side shouldn’t go right up to the patio door, as it looks far too long in the drawing. I wanted to have that corrected as well, even though it doesn’t affect the approval.
Upper floor:
I have attached the current and last draft for comparison here. I think both have their appeal – now, putting aside any subsidies or possible plans for more children:
In the old draft (OG4a), I like the clear structure and what I find a very successful (fair) layout. The new one (OG5) apparently offers more flexibility at first glance, whether for an additional child, a guest room, an office, or if needed later to move the washing machine/laundry appliances upstairs.
However, the latter won’t help me if the other two children’s rooms no longer function properly. The knee wall of about 2 m (6.6 ft) height, for example, does not allow you to place wardrobes freely. Regarding the beds, the small light strips on the south side could maybe still be shifted somewhat…
What do you think as outsiders about the two options?
I would also plan for a third bedroom instead of the utility room. If I’m already investing in an expensive basement, I want it to free up space on the upper floors for technical equipment and miscellaneous stuff.
However, the issue hasn’t been fully thought through. If a third child actually arrives, do you really want five people fighting over one bathroom every morning? That’s already a nightmare with four people. Having a shower on the ground floor would help (but you probably can’t separate it from the entrance near the garage, so you’d still end up waiting outside the bathroom). But with five people, it becomes even more unmanageable.
It’s all so chaotic. A third kid’s bedroom but only one bathroom for everyone, the office was removed, which would have been a good alternative space, the children’s bedrooms upstairs are now smaller, and there’s still no second shower. I just can’t follow that plan anymore.
However, the issue hasn’t been fully thought through. If a third child actually arrives, do you really want five people fighting over one bathroom every morning? That’s already a nightmare with four people. Having a shower on the ground floor would help (but you probably can’t separate it from the entrance near the garage, so you’d still end up waiting outside the bathroom). But with five people, it becomes even more unmanageable.
It’s all so chaotic. A third kid’s bedroom but only one bathroom for everyone, the office was removed, which would have been a good alternative space, the children’s bedrooms upstairs are now smaller, and there’s still no second shower. I just can’t follow that plan anymore.
We consider the bathroom issue unproblematic, since we will create an additional wet room or shower in the basement, which is why one in the ground floor has been removed (keyword: "mudroom with shower facility").
My main concern was really about the practicality of having a smaller 10 sqm (108 sqft) room, which could be used as an office or, if necessary, as an extra children’s room (in a few years) for a young child during their early years. In the long run, this solution is never practical anyway, so we would have to rearrange in 10 to 15 years—assuming our then (almost) adult eldest son doesn’t move out again.
The concerns mainly revolve around whether this measure would overly limit the existing children's rooms....
My main concern was really about the practicality of having a smaller 10 sqm (108 sqft) room, which could be used as an office or, if necessary, as an extra children’s room (in a few years) for a young child during their early years. In the long run, this solution is never practical anyway, so we would have to rearrange in 10 to 15 years—assuming our then (almost) adult eldest son doesn’t move out again.
The concerns mainly revolve around whether this measure would overly limit the existing children's rooms....
Similar topics