ᐅ Floor plan design for a single-family house, 165 sqm, without a basement, on a 400 sqm plot
Created on: 10 Aug 2023 09:33
M
Maulwurfbau
At the request of 11ant, here is a post with the completed list ;-) Unfortunately, he still doesn’t have a crystal ball.
Providing all information possible/available at this point in time.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 400 sqm (4300 sq ft)
Slope: No, and no means no!
Floor space index (FSI): 0.4
Floor area ratio (FAR): ?
Building envelope, building line and boundary: Yes, available.
Edge development: Possible with garage.
Number of parking spaces: at least 1, preferably 2
Number of storeys: 1-2
Roof type: Gable roof (pitch minimum 31°, maximum 45°)
Architectural style: ??
Orientation: Gable end facing
Maximum heights / limits: Roof ridge 6-7 m (20-23 ft), eaves 9-12 m (30-39 ft)
Other requirements: No brick facades allowed. Driveway or space in front of garage at least 6 m (20 ft). Red roof tiles mandatory, light facade.
Homeowners’ Requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type: Gable roof, fixed
Basement, storeys: 2 full storeys without basement
Number of occupants, age: 4 people (2 toddlers)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Office: Family use or home office? Office of approx. 12 sqm (130 sq ft) is a must.
Guest bedrooms per year: Few
Open or closed architecture: ? Whatever that means.
Conservative or modern construction style: rather modern construction.
Open kitchen, cooking island: Open kitchen, possibly with cooking island
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: NO
Music / stereo wall: Not planned, TV location is quite important.
Balcony, roof terrace: NO
Garage, carport: Garage desired. Carport with storage box also conceivable.
Utility garden, greenhouse: NO
Further wishes / special features / daily routine, preferably with reasons for choices:
Laundry room on the upper floor. They want to do laundry where it is generated and where it must be returned clean. Anything else is a hassle, at least for us.
House Design
Who designed the plan: Architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
Everything we provided as basic information and what our daily life requires has been implemented.
We like the clear lines/structure.
The open space in the hallway.
The connection/proximity of all rooms on ground and upper floors that need water/sewage. So no funny business with the bathroom upstairs in one corner and the utility room diagonally opposite on the ground floor. Personally, I like that.
No bay windows or other awkward extensions.
Laundry room upstairs where the washer and dryer are planned.
What don’t you like? Why?
The living room might be a bit too exposed for us. It could also be a cozy nook with TV without direct view of the kitchen. Cooking and eating together openly is liked; the living room could be a bit more separate. Currently, the floor plan shows it like a narrow, rather shadowy corner.
The somewhat narrow bedroom upstairs is not a dealbreaker but not 100% pleasing.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
-
Personal price limit for the house, including fixtures and fittings:
500-575k
Preferred heating system:
Predefined, ground source heat pump with collector. Cold local heating network.
If you have to give up, which details/extras
-can you do without:
The small additional room for the father upstairs.
Garage, as mentioned carport also conceivable.
-can you not do without:
Office.
Storage box at garage or carport.
Children’s rooms.
Why is the design the way it is now? e.g.
The design turned out this way because the architect implemented our wishes and requirements almost 1:1. This preliminary layout resulted in this first version.
What do you consider particularly good or bad?
See what we like and what not. We don’t find anything particularly bad. Rather, not entirely optimal.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
Position garage flush with house or set back?
43.5 sqm (468 sq ft) + 4 sqm (43 sq ft) pantry sufficient as “all-purpose room”?
Same floor plan possibly mirrored? Then office on south side, sun all day, blinds always down. Same issue upstairs with bedroom in summer at least. Entrance farther from parking space.
The building method will be timber frame construction with a local timber builder.
This is a first sketch after clarifying needs/wishes with the architect.
Providing all information possible/available at this point in time.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 400 sqm (4300 sq ft)
Slope: No, and no means no!
Floor space index (FSI): 0.4
Floor area ratio (FAR): ?
Building envelope, building line and boundary: Yes, available.
Edge development: Possible with garage.
Number of parking spaces: at least 1, preferably 2
Number of storeys: 1-2
Roof type: Gable roof (pitch minimum 31°, maximum 45°)
Architectural style: ??
Orientation: Gable end facing
Maximum heights / limits: Roof ridge 6-7 m (20-23 ft), eaves 9-12 m (30-39 ft)
Other requirements: No brick facades allowed. Driveway or space in front of garage at least 6 m (20 ft). Red roof tiles mandatory, light facade.
Homeowners’ Requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type: Gable roof, fixed
Basement, storeys: 2 full storeys without basement
Number of occupants, age: 4 people (2 toddlers)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor:
Office: Family use or home office? Office of approx. 12 sqm (130 sq ft) is a must.
Guest bedrooms per year: Few
Open or closed architecture: ? Whatever that means.
Conservative or modern construction style: rather modern construction.
Open kitchen, cooking island: Open kitchen, possibly with cooking island
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: NO
Music / stereo wall: Not planned, TV location is quite important.
Balcony, roof terrace: NO
Garage, carport: Garage desired. Carport with storage box also conceivable.
Utility garden, greenhouse: NO
Further wishes / special features / daily routine, preferably with reasons for choices:
Laundry room on the upper floor. They want to do laundry where it is generated and where it must be returned clean. Anything else is a hassle, at least for us.
House Design
Who designed the plan: Architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
Everything we provided as basic information and what our daily life requires has been implemented.
We like the clear lines/structure.
The open space in the hallway.
The connection/proximity of all rooms on ground and upper floors that need water/sewage. So no funny business with the bathroom upstairs in one corner and the utility room diagonally opposite on the ground floor. Personally, I like that.
No bay windows or other awkward extensions.
Laundry room upstairs where the washer and dryer are planned.
What don’t you like? Why?
The living room might be a bit too exposed for us. It could also be a cozy nook with TV without direct view of the kitchen. Cooking and eating together openly is liked; the living room could be a bit more separate. Currently, the floor plan shows it like a narrow, rather shadowy corner.
The somewhat narrow bedroom upstairs is not a dealbreaker but not 100% pleasing.
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
-
Personal price limit for the house, including fixtures and fittings:
500-575k
Preferred heating system:
Predefined, ground source heat pump with collector. Cold local heating network.
If you have to give up, which details/extras
-can you do without:
The small additional room for the father upstairs.
Garage, as mentioned carport also conceivable.
-can you not do without:
Office.
Storage box at garage or carport.
Children’s rooms.
Why is the design the way it is now? e.g.
The design turned out this way because the architect implemented our wishes and requirements almost 1:1. This preliminary layout resulted in this first version.
What do you consider particularly good or bad?
See what we like and what not. We don’t find anything particularly bad. Rather, not entirely optimal.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
Position garage flush with house or set back?
43.5 sqm (468 sq ft) + 4 sqm (43 sq ft) pantry sufficient as “all-purpose room”?
Same floor plan possibly mirrored? Then office on south side, sun all day, blinds always down. Same issue upstairs with bedroom in summer at least. Entrance farther from parking space.
The building method will be timber frame construction with a local timber builder.
This is a first sketch after clarifying needs/wishes with the architect.
M
Maulwurfbau21 May 2024 08:08Yes, I agree with you. When you look at it more closely, it is too deep.
The floor plan will remain as is; we don’t want to make any changes there. The roof structure will need to be adjusted again.
The 238cm (94 inches) will probably stay as well. To create harmony, we could possibly standardize everything to 230cm (91 inches).
The floor plan will remain as is; we don’t want to make any changes there. The roof structure will need to be adjusted again.
The 238cm (94 inches) will probably stay as well. To create harmony, we could possibly standardize everything to 230cm (91 inches).
hanse987 schrieb:
On the other hand, there are windows with a top edge at 2.38m (7 ft 10 in), which in my opinion is the other extreme. Maulwurfbau schrieb:
To harmonize, we could possibly go with 230cm (7 ft 7 in) everywhere. What is the reason not to go for the possible maximum height (excluding the roller shutter box)?
M
Maulwurfbau22 May 2024 14:42Basically none at all, but why does it have to be done this way?
M
Maulwurfbau22 May 2024 14:52The clear ceiling height is 270 cm (106 inches), the roller shutter box requires about 30 cm (12 inches) plus some clearance. That leaves approximately 240 cm (94 inches). We would now set the top edge of the window possibly around 230 cm (90 inches). Which maximum do you mean exactly? I think this is already quite close to the maximum.
And what would be the issue with lowering it to 220 cm (87 inches)? Are there any DIN standards or similar regulations that would be violated by doing so?
And what would be the issue with lowering it to 220 cm (87 inches)? Are there any DIN standards or similar regulations that would be violated by doing so?
Normally, you want windows to let in light (often also air, but that is usually temporary and becomes secondary beyond a certain point). And basically, as many as possible.
In the past, windows were not as advanced as today’s, so in our climate zones they tended to be smaller to reduce heat loss during winter. Today, that is generally not a problem, as modern windows provide good insulation.
Most people want as much natural light as possible. Natural light saves electricity, creates a pleasant atmosphere, "opens up the space," improves mood, and—regarding running costs—is free. Sometimes you even have a nice view.
Therefore, I would always recommend having as much window opening as possible.
Sometimes the layout limits the position of a window. These restrictions are usually horizontal—furniture placement, things you want to hang on the wall, or pipes running inside the wall. The sill height also depends on usage or is more a matter of taste. For example, whether you want a desk in front of a floor-to-ceiling window or prefer a sill there is a matter of personal preference. But taste is also a reason—for example, not wanting neighbors or passersby to see one’s bare legs is a valid reason to set a lower limit for the window height.
Once you have defined the position, sill height, and width of a window opening, I cannot think of any reason (except maybe technical or financial) not to make the window as tall as possible. That means the roller shutter box and perhaps a 2cm (1 inch) tolerance margin.
So, if I were you, I would set 2.38m (7 ft 9½ in) as the maximum height everywhere—if you could achieve 2.4m (7 ft 10½ in) everywhere. It is possible that at a certain width and with floor-to-ceiling windows, the sash becomes so heavy that the window manufacturer may limit the warranty or require reinforcements. In that case, you can consider slightly reducing the main sash width.
If financial reasons speak against this, I would first consider if fixed glazing could work somewhere. With double-sash windows, this is almost always an option and can save a lot. Then possibly omit shading on north-facing windows, saving more where possible. For difficult-to-reach upper-floor windows, omit protection class. Then reduce width (but keep a minimum of 70cm (28 inches)). Then reduce height, starting from the bottom, with a maximum sill height of 1.20m (3 ft 11 in) (top edge of finished floor). Then reduce height from the top.
P.S.: As a last reason, one could cite chronic migraines or sun allergies, but in that case, I would selectively apply it room by room rather than install tiny windows throughout the house. Not because any regulation requires it (to my knowledge, they mandate only 1/8 of the room area), but out of personal motivation.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone could deliberately choose not to maximize window openings without a good reason.
That’s why I ask what the reason is.
In the past, windows were not as advanced as today’s, so in our climate zones they tended to be smaller to reduce heat loss during winter. Today, that is generally not a problem, as modern windows provide good insulation.
Most people want as much natural light as possible. Natural light saves electricity, creates a pleasant atmosphere, "opens up the space," improves mood, and—regarding running costs—is free. Sometimes you even have a nice view.
Therefore, I would always recommend having as much window opening as possible.
Sometimes the layout limits the position of a window. These restrictions are usually horizontal—furniture placement, things you want to hang on the wall, or pipes running inside the wall. The sill height also depends on usage or is more a matter of taste. For example, whether you want a desk in front of a floor-to-ceiling window or prefer a sill there is a matter of personal preference. But taste is also a reason—for example, not wanting neighbors or passersby to see one’s bare legs is a valid reason to set a lower limit for the window height.
Once you have defined the position, sill height, and width of a window opening, I cannot think of any reason (except maybe technical or financial) not to make the window as tall as possible. That means the roller shutter box and perhaps a 2cm (1 inch) tolerance margin.
So, if I were you, I would set 2.38m (7 ft 9½ in) as the maximum height everywhere—if you could achieve 2.4m (7 ft 10½ in) everywhere. It is possible that at a certain width and with floor-to-ceiling windows, the sash becomes so heavy that the window manufacturer may limit the warranty or require reinforcements. In that case, you can consider slightly reducing the main sash width.
If financial reasons speak against this, I would first consider if fixed glazing could work somewhere. With double-sash windows, this is almost always an option and can save a lot. Then possibly omit shading on north-facing windows, saving more where possible. For difficult-to-reach upper-floor windows, omit protection class. Then reduce width (but keep a minimum of 70cm (28 inches)). Then reduce height, starting from the bottom, with a maximum sill height of 1.20m (3 ft 11 in) (top edge of finished floor). Then reduce height from the top.
P.S.: As a last reason, one could cite chronic migraines or sun allergies, but in that case, I would selectively apply it room by room rather than install tiny windows throughout the house. Not because any regulation requires it (to my knowledge, they mandate only 1/8 of the room area), but out of personal motivation.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone could deliberately choose not to maximize window openings without a good reason.
That’s why I ask what the reason is.
M
Maulwurfbau22 May 2024 16:10Yes, much of this is understandable.
Planning a window directly in front of a piece of furniture is, in my opinion, not a matter of taste but a clear design flaw. But okay, it seems to be popular.
I know that buzzwords like architecture, client preferences, and simple liking don’t get much appreciation here. At least that’s my impression from being active in this forum and reading what’s written.
Anyway, these might be reasons not to go all out—maximizing light and maximizing views into my private life included. To take it to the extreme, it almost seems better to build some kind of wall around the window. Essentially living in a greenhouse—which could save energy.
What you save in electricity/energy with sufficient window areas compared to a maximum amount is probably about the same as the time difference between winter and summer time adjustments. But that’s just a guess.
Let’s go through this again; the height will definitely be adjusted. However, I don’t fully share the idea that everything should be as large as possible.
Planning a window directly in front of a piece of furniture is, in my opinion, not a matter of taste but a clear design flaw. But okay, it seems to be popular.
I know that buzzwords like architecture, client preferences, and simple liking don’t get much appreciation here. At least that’s my impression from being active in this forum and reading what’s written.
Anyway, these might be reasons not to go all out—maximizing light and maximizing views into my private life included. To take it to the extreme, it almost seems better to build some kind of wall around the window. Essentially living in a greenhouse—which could save energy.
What you save in electricity/energy with sufficient window areas compared to a maximum amount is probably about the same as the time difference between winter and summer time adjustments. But that’s just a guess.
Let’s go through this again; the height will definitely be adjusted. However, I don’t fully share the idea that everything should be as large as possible.
Similar topics