ᐅ Site and floor plan design with access from the southeast
Created on: 13 Apr 2025 14:52
H
Häuslebauer26
Hello dear forum members,
Now we would like to ask for your help!
We have reached the point where we have decided on a builder specializing in timber prefabricated houses (a small family business, ecological timber panel construction with breathable, diffusion-open wall assembly) and are just waiting for the loan approval, which should happen soon.
Architectural services are included in our house price, and we have already received initial drafts and some revisions based on our wishes. However, we are somewhat dissatisfied and hope you might have some great ideas or can spark new thoughts.
Here are the facts:
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 651 sqm (7009 sq ft)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.25 = 162.5 sqm (1750 sq ft)
Floor area ratio: not specified in development plan (Baden-Württemberg)
Building envelope, building line and boundary: no specifications (Baden-Württemberg); blue dashed line in the image
Edge development: garage
Number of parking spaces: maximum 6 above-ground spaces – we will never need that many 🙂
Number of storeys: 2 full storeys possible, but maximum ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)
Roof type: gable, hip or pyramid roof; roof pitch 20° - 35°
Maximum heights / limits: max. ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: single-family house, city villa, pyramid or hip roof, timber prefabricated house
Basement, storeys: no basement, 2 full storeys
Number of occupants, ages: currently M 32 years, F 27 years, children planned, up to 4 people
Space requirements ground floor / upper floor: about +/- 160 sqm (1720 sq ft), estimated from previous drafts
Office: family use or home office? M works 100% from home, room also serves as guest room
Number of overnight guests per year: about 3-4 times
Open or closed layout: rather open
Conservative or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen with kitchen block
Number of dining seats: at least 6, 8 would be nice
Fireplace desired, currently one of the problems 🙂
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: preference for an attached double garage. So far, the architect hasn’t managed to incorporate this.
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for any preferences:
House design
Who designed it: architect of the builder
What do you like most? Why? Open kitchen and dining area, as the central living space in the house. Orientation of master bedroom and bathroom because the window front faces undeveloped land, with no planned expansion of the settlement.
What don’t you like? Why?
-Pantry, because the dining area might become a bit cramped. Also, the fireplace is inside the pantry since the floor space is otherwise too small. The fireplace is a fixed element due to the upper floor; there is very little room to move it.
-Connection from dining room to living room is hard to imagine and should not become a pointless corridor.
-Garage: currently a compromise. The wish is for a garage directly attached with access to the house, for example through the technical room. The architect says that this would make the southwest side too tight – his words. If it is possible after all, what about the entrance area?
Price estimate according to architect/planner: turnkey house without earthworks and kitchen 480K, already with selected materials.
Personal price limit for house including fittings: 500K
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump
What details or features could you give up?
-Can give up: connection from living room to hallway is nice to have
-Cannot give up: pantry itself
Why is the design like it is now? For example:
Standard draft from planner? That was the starting point, but we have moved quite far away from it.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? Large kitchen and lots of light in kitchen and dining area, living room was somewhat enlarged.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad? It feels like everything the architect has done is just what we asked for. No own ideas have been introduced. We are still waiting for a “Hey – this could be done better” moment.
I would appreciate any small ideas or criticism!
Wishing you all a nice Sunday!
Now we would like to ask for your help!
We have reached the point where we have decided on a builder specializing in timber prefabricated houses (a small family business, ecological timber panel construction with breathable, diffusion-open wall assembly) and are just waiting for the loan approval, which should happen soon.
Architectural services are included in our house price, and we have already received initial drafts and some revisions based on our wishes. However, we are somewhat dissatisfied and hope you might have some great ideas or can spark new thoughts.
Here are the facts:
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 651 sqm (7009 sq ft)
Slope: no
Site coverage ratio: 0.25 = 162.5 sqm (1750 sq ft)
Floor area ratio: not specified in development plan (Baden-Württemberg)
Building envelope, building line and boundary: no specifications (Baden-Württemberg); blue dashed line in the image
Edge development: garage
Number of parking spaces: maximum 6 above-ground spaces – we will never need that many 🙂
Number of storeys: 2 full storeys possible, but maximum ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)
Roof type: gable, hip or pyramid roof; roof pitch 20° - 35°
Maximum heights / limits: max. ridge height 8.50 m (28 ft)
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: single-family house, city villa, pyramid or hip roof, timber prefabricated house
Basement, storeys: no basement, 2 full storeys
Number of occupants, ages: currently M 32 years, F 27 years, children planned, up to 4 people
Space requirements ground floor / upper floor: about +/- 160 sqm (1720 sq ft), estimated from previous drafts
Office: family use or home office? M works 100% from home, room also serves as guest room
Number of overnight guests per year: about 3-4 times
Open or closed layout: rather open
Conservative or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: open kitchen with kitchen block
Number of dining seats: at least 6, 8 would be nice
Fireplace desired, currently one of the problems 🙂
Music / stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: preference for an attached double garage. So far, the architect hasn’t managed to incorporate this.
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for any preferences:
- Ground floor: open living-dining area, technical room without utility room, additional room as office, guest WC without shower.
- Upper floor: master bedroom, 2 children’s rooms, bathroom with shower and bathtub, utility room for washing machine and dryer
- Lawn / play area for kids later
- A terrace not directly facing the street for privacy
House design
Who designed it: architect of the builder
What do you like most? Why? Open kitchen and dining area, as the central living space in the house. Orientation of master bedroom and bathroom because the window front faces undeveloped land, with no planned expansion of the settlement.
What don’t you like? Why?
-Pantry, because the dining area might become a bit cramped. Also, the fireplace is inside the pantry since the floor space is otherwise too small. The fireplace is a fixed element due to the upper floor; there is very little room to move it.
-Connection from dining room to living room is hard to imagine and should not become a pointless corridor.
-Garage: currently a compromise. The wish is for a garage directly attached with access to the house, for example through the technical room. The architect says that this would make the southwest side too tight – his words. If it is possible after all, what about the entrance area?
Price estimate according to architect/planner: turnkey house without earthworks and kitchen 480K, already with selected materials.
Personal price limit for house including fittings: 500K
Preferred heating system: air-to-water heat pump
What details or features could you give up?
-Can give up: connection from living room to hallway is nice to have
-Cannot give up: pantry itself
Why is the design like it is now? For example:
Standard draft from planner? That was the starting point, but we have moved quite far away from it.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? Large kitchen and lots of light in kitchen and dining area, living room was somewhat enlarged.
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad? It feels like everything the architect has done is just what we asked for. No own ideas have been introduced. We are still waiting for a “Hey – this could be done better” moment.
I would appreciate any small ideas or criticism!
Wishing you all a nice Sunday!
S
Schorsch_baut13 Apr 2025 19:37Instead of the pantry, I would install a tall cabinet unit and widen the island. Place the fireplace on the exterior wall.
kbt09 schrieb:
Take a look at the blue dashed lines in the first post. That should indicate the area where the house is allowed to be built. I was mainly concerned about the orientation of the main entrance and the open-plan living area. The house would then be moved 1–2 meters (3–6 feet) further south. The advantage would be the nice view of unspoiled greenery. It’s certainly a bit unconventional, but worth considering, in my opinion. The plot is also large enough for a small secondary terrace on the south side. I’m already feeling a little jealous.
ypg schrieb:
The footprint here is a rectangle. Ok, 11 by 9.50 meters (36 by 31 feet) is indeed not a perfect square, that’s correct. Just looking at it—which is all I have done—it still appears close to a square, at least roughly, even after enjoying a non-alcoholic beer. I’m not sure if these typical “urban villas” (question to @11ant: Have you actually patented your term yet?) always represent a precise square down to the centimeter, yet I recall similar issues: too much space in the center of the house and too little elsewhere. This is exactly where, in my opinion, that pointless central block comes from, which fortunately would never fit in a distinctly rectangular footprint.
I fear the house type was indicated first and answered with something like “preferably an urban villa,” and only then did the designer try to hide the clients’ needs within that.
@Häuslebauer26 has clearly been dissatisfied so far; I think a plan should be rethought, free from unnecessary restrictions imposed by marketing-oriented terminology. If it still ends up as some sort of pseudo-square, well, that’s fine, but I really doubt it.
ypg schrieb:
And from the floor plan perspective, there are few disadvantages compared to a conventional detached house. I definitely don’t want to dismiss the floor plan as bad, but the awkward hallway layout with two wardrobe areas isn’t ideal, and personally I would prefer a more open view into the bright living area and/or beyond into the garden rather than facing the back wall of the pantry. That’s just my personal feeling and merely (my) opinion.
If the ground floor still gets a shower—which I consider essential for this family situation—it will be tight anyway, also because the utility room isn’t exactly spacious.
ypg schrieb:
Do you really want to store these Saxons in the walk-in closet or utility room? Don’t say a word against these Saxons, okay!
I do like @Schorsch_baut’s idea; maybe I would convert the right wardrobe section into a shower. If the fireplace is really supposed to be there despite underfloor heating, I would consider an external chimney. That saves interior space and, in my opinion, also looks stylish; we did it that way and also like how it looks from the outside.
Arauki11 schrieb:
Don’t say anything against these Saxons, okay! Hehe, Saxons get locked up.
Arauki11 schrieb:
2 wardrobe sides Those would bother me, too. A large closet doesn’t fit on either side.
However, I would prefer not to be able to see straight from the sofa through the hallway to the front door.
At first glance, I see two design flaws here: the pantry enclosed by living spaces, meaning it is kept warm all around although it would be better located on the north wall, and additionally "heated" by the chimney; secondly, the chimney itself: in a house built to comply with energy-saving regulations, it is already unnecessary, and even more so in a building energy law-compliant house. Choose a "Kamin21" (Black Matrix Display, Raspberry, Sound) – authentic, considerably cheaper, emits no excess heat, and leaves the chimney sweep without work.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Häuslebauer26 schrieb:"Decision made" because the company is friendly, another less so, a third too expensive, and you don’t know a fourth and/or.
We are at the point where the decision for a developer in the area of timber prefabricated houses [...] has been made
Häuslebauer26 schrieb:Because of the oldest marketing joke about the “breathing wall”?
(small family business, ecological timber panel construction with vapor-open wall assembly)
Häuslebauer26 schrieb:How should we imagine this: did you present your wishes and the design is from the “architect,” or did he simply produce a clean drawing of your own design? An amateur plan (which remains so even if a professional copies it) typically has about 20% unrecognized extra surface area, which means—for 160 sqm (1722 sqft)—it potentially could be reduced by about 25 sqm (269 sqft) loss-free (!) (equaling roughly 75,000 EUR) — are the competitors you have reviewed still above budget after that?
Who created the design: architect from the developer
Arauki11 schrieb:The problem with the "instead villa" (the term is not protected, which doesn’t bother me) lies elsewhere and does not apply to this design. Also, the (aptly described) "pointless block in the middle" is only unfortunate from an energy perspective here and does not disrupt the overall floor plan, but likely contributes to the unrecognized surplus area. The aspect ratio of 22:19 (about 1.15:1) is far enough from the indeed architecturally unfavorable exact square.
I don’t really know if these usual “urban villas” (question to @11ant: Have you already patented your term?) always represent a perfect square down to the centimeter, but I remember recurring problems: too much space in the center of the house and too little elsewhere. This also results in the, in my opinion, pointless block in the middle, which luckily would never fit in a clearly rectangular shape.
I fear that first the house type was requested and answered with “preferably an urban villa” or similar, and only then did the planner hide the client’s needs inside it.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
roteweste schrieb:
I was especially concerned about the orientation of the main entrance and the open-plan living area. The house would then be moved 1–2 meters (3–6 feet) further south. In that case, I would rather consider using the full depth of the building plot for the house and making it narrower instead.
Similar topics