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 would approach the project quite differently:
House planning:
And finally, you can calculate whether you can manage with the available or currently planned resources, and whether there is potential for savings.
Because what use is a heavily compromised house in 10 years, as seen in the initial planning drafts?
- Why have two heating systems? In apartment buildings, there is usually only one heating system with heat meters installed on each heating circuit for billing purposes. This can also be done with underfloor heating (which is how it is arranged in my rental building).
- Plan the water supply lines so that water meters can be installed conveniently.
- The ventilation system could become more complicated.
House planning:
- First, I would design the house as I would likely want to live in it in about 10 years.
- Then, I would take that plan and see how to cleverly create separations to, for example, have one unit for a family of three (cousin), ideally with garden access, and a separate holiday unit, ideally with a balcony.
- Also important for determining the position of a house
is where the entrance of the neighboring house is located. This helps to create pleasant terrace possibilities around your own house. It’s always best to have sheltered spots, sunny corners, and shady corners, as no one wants to sit in direct southern sun at 30°C (86°F).
And finally, you can calculate whether you can manage with the available or currently planned resources, and whether there is potential for savings.
Because what use is a heavily compromised house in 10 years, as seen in the initial planning drafts?
When I look at the site plan more closely, it doesn’t seem very coherent to me. I don’t really see how a strict framework for ridge heights or roof pitches could be derived from the integration requirement—everyone seems to do their own thing with the ridge orientation, and there appears to be a wide variety of outbuildings everywhere.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
When I look at the site plan, it doesn’t seem very consistent to me. I don’t really see a clear basis for deriving a strict range of ridge heights or roof pitches from the integration requirement—everyone seems to choose their own ridge direction, and there appear to be numerous different outbuildings scattered around. Yes, the houses are oriented differently. The extensions vary in size and orientation as well.
What is not visible on the site plan is that the ridge heights of the houses are very uniform and that all the roofs are gable roofs with almost the same pitch. The garages also have gable roofs.
but OK, if we are to start fresh again... then back to square one:
Our dream house:
- Bungalow, 180 m² (according to living space regulation)
- L-shaped design
- basement
- double garage with an adjacent room for car and garden equipment
pros:
- there are several prefabricated house suppliers whose models would initially seem suitable, allowing us to choose the one that best fits the plot in terms of orientation and the eastern neighbor
cons:
- exceeds the budget
- most likely not permitted on this plot
- my partner does not want foam insulation on the exterior walls and actually prefers no prefab house at all
- basement will be expensive
possible solutions:
- special permission from authorities
- partial basement
- finding a general contractor who builds such a “standard” bungalow with bricks or aerated concrete
- 120 instead of 180 m²
- omit garage
unresolved:
- the basement cannot be omitted if the garage is left out. An alternative would be the attic, but in a bungalow the attic does not have standing height, there are beams in the way, no staircase for daily use, and no space for a normal staircase
- such small bungalows with masonry walls do not seem to be offered as “standard” models; custom planning and construction would again greatly exceed the budget
Our dream house:
- Bungalow, 180 m² (according to living space regulation)
- L-shaped design
- basement
- double garage with an adjacent room for car and garden equipment
pros:
- there are several prefabricated house suppliers whose models would initially seem suitable, allowing us to choose the one that best fits the plot in terms of orientation and the eastern neighbor
cons:
- exceeds the budget
- most likely not permitted on this plot
- my partner does not want foam insulation on the exterior walls and actually prefers no prefab house at all
- basement will be expensive
possible solutions:
- special permission from authorities
- partial basement
- finding a general contractor who builds such a “standard” bungalow with bricks or aerated concrete
- 120 instead of 180 m²
- omit garage
unresolved:
- the basement cannot be omitted if the garage is left out. An alternative would be the attic, but in a bungalow the attic does not have standing height, there are beams in the way, no staircase for daily use, and no space for a normal staircase
- such small bungalows with masonry walls do not seem to be offered as “standard” models; custom planning and construction would again greatly exceed the budget
and the alternatives to our dream house:
Alternative 1:
- townhouse
- exactly the same pros and cons
- possible solutions: either try for the dream house or choose Alternative 2
Alternative 2:
- captain’s house, 180 m² (approximately 1,938 sq ft, based on living space regulations)
- with dormer in the roof and bay window below
- with balcony on the upper floor
pros:
- allowed to build, neighbors have the same
- prefab house manufacturers also offer attractive designs for this
cons:
- over budget
- my partner does not want foam plastic on the exterior walls and actually does not want a prefab house at all
- basement would be expensive
possible solutions:
- partial basement
- find a general contractor who builds such a “standard” captain’s house using brick or aerated concrete
- reduce size to 120 m² (approximately 1,292 sq ft) instead of 180 m² (approximately 1,938 sq ft)
- omit garage
unsolved:
- basement can’t be skipped if the garage is left out. An alternative to the basement would be the attic, but even in the captain’s house the attic usually has no standing height, and there is no daily-use staircase or space for a regular staircase
What other alternatives are there?
Alternative 1:
- townhouse
- exactly the same pros and cons
- possible solutions: either try for the dream house or choose Alternative 2
Alternative 2:
- captain’s house, 180 m² (approximately 1,938 sq ft, based on living space regulations)
- with dormer in the roof and bay window below
- with balcony on the upper floor
pros:
- allowed to build, neighbors have the same
- prefab house manufacturers also offer attractive designs for this
cons:
- over budget
- my partner does not want foam plastic on the exterior walls and actually does not want a prefab house at all
- basement would be expensive
possible solutions:
- partial basement
- find a general contractor who builds such a “standard” captain’s house using brick or aerated concrete
- reduce size to 120 m² (approximately 1,292 sq ft) instead of 180 m² (approximately 1,938 sq ft)
- omit garage
unsolved:
- basement can’t be skipped if the garage is left out. An alternative to the basement would be the attic, but even in the captain’s house the attic usually has no standing height, and there is no daily-use staircase or space for a regular staircase
What other alternatives are there?
Similar topics