Thank you for all suggestions!
------------------
Development Plan/Restrictions
Building gap in an older residential area, no detailed development plan, but subject to §34
Plot is surrounded by roads on three sides
Plot size = 610 m² (6566 sq ft)
Slope = approx. 0.50 m (1.6 ft) south-facing slope
Site coverage ratio = not explicitly defined
Floor area ratio = not explicitly defined
Building envelope, building line, and limits = not explicitly defined (state building code requires 2.50 m (8.2 ft) distance)
Edge development = a neighbor’s shed at the northeast boundary
Number of parking spaces = 4 (state building code requires: 2 per dwelling unit)
Number of floors = 1 ½ (presumably required due to §34)
Roof type = gable roof (presumably required due to §34)
Architectural style = similar to surrounding buildings (§34)
Orientation = unclear, existing buildings are varied
Maximum height/limits = unclear, existing buildings mostly around 7.50 m (24.6 ft) ridge height
Other requirements = none known
Immediate surroundings have no trees
Owners’ Requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type = no preference, just what’s allowed
Basement, floors = no basement (budget reasons), desired number of floors is 2, but only 1 ½ permitted
Number of residents, age = initially Dwelling Unit 1 (ground floor): 2 adults (tenants or holiday renters) + Dwelling Unit 2 (attic): 2 adults, 1 child (2 years old)
In about 10 years, after conversion to a single-family house: 2 adults
Space requirement on ground and upper floor = small, current space needs not permanent, DU2 (attic) needs about 10 m² (108 sq ft) of storage space in basement/attic
Office: family use or home office? = no dedicated office but a utility/cleaning/common room
Overnight guests per year = none
Open or closed architecture = open
Conservative or modern construction style = no preference, just what is permitted
Open kitchen, cooking island = open kitchen yes, cooking island only if space allows (therefore no)
Number of dining seats = initially DU1 (ground floor): 4 + DU2 (attic): 4
Fireplace = no
Music/sound system wall = no
Balcony, roof terrace = no (budget reasons)
Garage, carport = no (budget reasons)
Utility garden, greenhouse = no
Additional wishes/special requirements/daily routine, also reasons why certain things should or should not be included
= Single-family house divided into two small rental units for a few years, one rented to relatives,
- to avoid a separate utility room on the ground floor, building services/heating/ventilation systems will be distributed between the common room and the attic,
- the seemingly “normal” dormer on the south side is omitted mainly due to budget,
- the roof pitch is steep (45°) to maximize usable space,
- the house orientation should allow wide unobstructed views and solar panels should be feasible,
- the site is very sunny, so excessive south-facing windows are not desired
House Design
Planning source = do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why? = House can be easily converted into a single-family home
What do you dislike? Why? = Ground floor space utilization is not optimal, no practical option to add a balcony later on the attic floor
Cost estimate according to architect/planner = unknown (“can be done very nicely for 400000”)
Personal budget limit for house including equipment = 200000 (two hundred thousand), excluding kitchen and furniture
Preferred heating system = district heating (required by the municipality, but acceptable)
If you have to give up something, which details/extensions
- can you give up = everything “common today but not 20 years ago,” kitchens, glass panels in front doors, separate dressing rooms, roller shutters on north/west/east, roof windows
- reluctant to give up = underfloor heating (because it is hard to retrofit)
- cannot give up = utility/cleaning/common room, some storage space somewhere, division into two rentable units
Why did the design turn out as it is now? = A mix of many examples from various magazines/internet, simplified/reduced to fit the very limited budget
-------
By the way, the light blue shaded rectangles on the site plan are intended to represent parking spaces for cars
I have a problem understanding the reasons behind this—perhaps you haven’t explained why it has to be so complicated?
I also find it difficult to understand—assuming the plan is good and makes sense—why the parking spaces are distributed so oddly on the property.
You can’t compare the conditions if a homeowner wants to build an in-law unit under or above their own living area just to save costs. These are two completely different things—or are you mainly concerned about saving money? I’ve read that your primary goal is to rent out, at least for the first 10 years, at least the upper part. Below, a holiday apartment is planned.
Why do you want to build the house at all? Are you looking for an investment? Do you want a holiday apartment and to be an entrepreneur, or are you building a home for yourselves (whoever that may be)? That’s what the house design should be based on.
That is because the current house no longer meets their needs and no longer brings them happiness.
But you can also see from your sentence that you cannot please everyone in every situation: some downsize, others expand their home.
An example from the internet, quickly found at Scanhaus Marlow, where I can clearly see at first glance that it is possible to separate the ground floor and upper floor with minimal effort—if you accept compromises in living quality and size.
But first of all, the question is: what do you basically want?
I also find it difficult to understand—assuming the plan is good and makes sense—why the parking spaces are distributed so oddly on the property.
bindig schrieb:
I have looked at many floor plans here in the forum, but under similar conditions, it seemed the discussion always ended up with building the house solely as a single-family home (SFH) without dividing it before (or after) the SFH use.
You can’t compare the conditions if a homeowner wants to build an in-law unit under or above their own living area just to save costs. These are two completely different things—or are you mainly concerned about saving money? I’ve read that your primary goal is to rent out, at least for the first 10 years, at least the upper part. Below, a holiday apartment is planned.
Why do you want to build the house at all? Are you looking for an investment? Do you want a holiday apartment and to be an entrepreneur, or are you building a home for yourselves (whoever that may be)? That’s what the house design should be based on.
bindig schrieb:
From what I see among friends and acquaintances, old houses are often divided into multiple apartments or old houses with several tiny units are converted back into a single-family home.
That is because the current house no longer meets their needs and no longer brings them happiness.
But you can also see from your sentence that you cannot please everyone in every situation: some downsize, others expand their home.
An example from the internet, quickly found at Scanhaus Marlow, where I can clearly see at first glance that it is possible to separate the ground floor and upper floor with minimal effort—if you accept compromises in living quality and size.
But first of all, the question is: what do you basically want?
kaho674 schrieb:
Some prefab house providers also offer homes designed for two families. [...] You can probably find something better, at least to get an initial feel for this kind of housing.But this doesn’t really address the OP’s current situation. They are currently working with houses built from basement-grade materials and floor plan concepts I came up with as a local resident. The ready-made options apparently don’t appeal to them.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
I don’t understand the confusing staircase layout on the ground floor at all.
The bathroom on the upper floor wastes a lot of space, but it’s not possible to fit a shower in there.
As a closet user in the master bedroom, the closet can’t have doors or must be under 200 cm (79 inches) tall. And the user should not be too tall either.
On the ground floor... what is that worm-like extension from the kitchen toward the bathroom supposed to be?
This definitely won’t work as it is.
The bathroom on the upper floor wastes a lot of space, but it’s not possible to fit a shower in there.
As a closet user in the master bedroom, the closet can’t have doors or must be under 200 cm (79 inches) tall. And the user should not be too tall either.
On the ground floor... what is that worm-like extension from the kitchen toward the bathroom supposed to be?
This definitely won’t work as it is.
Evolith schrieb:
Something different: You mention a limited budget. What budget do you actually have available? Only then can we properly help you with dimensions.200,000 (two hundred thousand) Otherwise: one-and-a-half stories --> sloped ceilings? You probably won't enjoy showering much in such a small bathroom. And constantly stepping out of the bathtub gets old over time. It’s also not entirely safe for a small child, by the way.The bathtub in the attic is half outside the 2-meter (6 ft 7 in) line. I’ve seen worse cases in older buildings. An alternative would be just a shower in the attic, which could be fully outside the sloped ceiling area. I’ll reconsider that. Then there are no windows in the bedrooms. But I think you’ve planned them, just didn’t draw them in.Yes, in the updated single-family house version the windows are included. In the original post, all windows on the east side are missing (two downstairs, two upstairs), for some reason. Obviously, it wouldn’t work there without windows. Also, a utility/technical room is missing. Since you have no basement, plan at least 8 square meters (86 sq ft) for the central heating compact unit and other equipment.I can’t find space for a utility room in a 10 by 8 meter (33 by 26 ft) footprint if there are supposed to be two units. I’m thinking part of the technical equipment could go into the common room (ground floor, top left on the plan) and the rest in the attic. Is that unrealistic? Why not build a 100 square meter (1,076 sq ft) bungalow? You could live much more comfortably and arrange the rooms better. It would also be easier to extend after a few years.Yes, a bungalow also seems more suitable to me. Unfortunately, on this building plot it would only be allowed if the roof height is at least about 7 meters (23 ft). As I understand it, we can’t have a cheap bungalow-style roof with thin vertical and angled beams providing intermittent support, but must have a “proper” roof. This means we could save on internal roof insulation if we leave the attic space completely unused. But since the bungalow would obviously need to be larger than 8 by 10 meters (26 by 33 ft), the roof will still be more expensive than on a small one-and-a-half-story house where the attic space would be used. – Alternative suggestions are welcome.Evolith schrieb:
Does it really have to be a divided house? Wouldn’t it also be possible to design the house just for yourselves?...haydee schrieb:
Why not build a house the way you want it in 10 years and rent it out now?
The children's room can be a guest or office room later.
A slightly smaller total area, but no two bathrooms, no two kitchens, and no expensive renovations later.Yes, a standard prefabricated house would actually be the remaining option if a divided prefab house and a divided custom-designed house are not feasible within this budget.
Similar topics