ᐅ Location of a city villa or detached single-family house on a 500 m² rectangular plot
Created on: 17 Jan 2020 18:03
T
Tolentino
Dear all,
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
Tolentino schrieb:
Where did I ask for that?! How else should one understand it if you only have 300K but want a 400K house?
Tolentino schrieb:
What I asked for were optimization suggestions for the floor plan(!) under the given conditions. The optimization consists of one mouse click → trash bin.
Tolentino schrieb:
- Fewer children (which is highly intrusive) It is not. Children are something you have to be able to afford. There is nothing wrong, shameful, offensive, or anything else about that.
But perhaps you should first ask your general contractor, architect, or whoever is going to build the house. They will surely make you a suggestion. After all, they are professionals.
kaho674 schrieb:
How else should I understand it if you only have 300K but want a 400K house? But that’s not what I want. I want the optimal floor plan for 5 people within a 300K budget. Basically, the best solution given the constraints.
Or are you saying that the house I’m currently planning already costs 400K excluding additional construction costs?
kaho674 schrieb:
Optimization consists of one click of the mouse -> trash bin. I’m happy to redo something, but without concrete suggestions on what to change, I always end up with the same result. And there have been some already, which I’m still working on.
kaho674 schrieb:
That’s not true. Children are something you need to be able to afford. There is nothing wrong, shameful, insulting, or anything else about that. If someone tells me to have fewer children, that’s a personal infringement I do not accept. Given the historical context of such statements, I would generally advise avoiding this topic altogether.
Otherwise, let’s agree to disagree and simply end this subtopic.
Thanks and regards
Tolentino
Tolentino schrieb:
But that’s not what I want. I want the optimal floor plan for 5 people with a budget of 300K. Simply the best possible solution within the given conditions.
Or are you saying that the house, as I am currently planning it, already costs 400K excluding additional construction costs? Yes. It’s not about precisely optimizing your floor plan, but about fitting all your requirements into the available square meters. That simply isn’t feasible. Or to put it another way — it will be a mess if all rooms are meant to serve their purpose, be aesthetically pleasing, and comfortable to live in. Maybe an architect could manage it — but usually one of the kids’ rooms ends up as just a storage room or the utility room is too small, and so on.
And this depends heavily on how many children’s bedrooms you plan. That’s why it’s important to have an open discussion about it. Anything else is just silly.
Tolentino schrieb:
If someone tells me to have fewer children, that is a personal insult which I will not accept. You can have 4 kids and put two of them in one bedroom. It’s up to you how you want to do it. But if each child wants their own room, then more money is needed, daddy.
Tolentino schrieb:
Do you mean I should position the whole house diagonally on the plot? Yes
Tolentino schrieb:
That is indeed difficult with the footprint and the building boundaries. No
Tolentino schrieb:
I definitely have to go square then. No
Tolentino schrieb:
and lose about 5 sqm (54 sq ft) of floor area. No
Tolentino schrieb:
I still can’t really see what benefits this would have for me in terms of lighting, etc. Since a house usually also includes one or two drivable parking spaces and an entrance platform, you don’t have much budget for the house (so an unconventional house shape is out of the question), and the plot isn’t very large anyway, you hardly have any choice. Actually, I find my idea better in every way. Moreover, it is feasible.
With your idea, you waste unnecessary space. Besides, the maneuvering for the parking won’t work properly!
Tolentino schrieb:
That’s one I’m trying too, but I don’t see the advantages right now. Sigh*: parking, parking maneuvers, kids, bicycles, yard, sight lines, size, zoning, sight lines...
Just try coming home in slow motion. Parking is only possible with a small car like a Smart, etc.
… and by positioning it diagonally, you also get the lovely western sunlight into the house.
ypg schrieb:
Parking is only possible with a Smart car, etc. You think? Are there any standard turning radius guidelines for average cars somewhere? Like, say, a Volkswagen Golf? And I’m not talking about the manufacturer’s technical specs, but how much space you should realistically allow for. Urban planners must know this—surely someone has this sort of info on hand? Anyone got an idea?
By the way, I’m not a fan of the angled driveway either, honey, sorry. I’d rather see the house set back further. That way, pulling out would also mean a rather long reverse maneuver, right?
kaho674 schrieb:
And that really depends a lot on how many children's rooms you plan. That’s why you have to be able to talk about it openly. Anything else is just silly.
You can also create 4 rooms and just put 2 kids in one room each. You can do that however you want. But if each child is supposed to have their own room, more money is needed, daddy. That’s something quite different. Discussing the number of rooms is, for me, factual and neutral.
So maybe a slightly larger room for the two younger children and a somewhat smaller one for the older child.
When the younger ones are old enough to want their own room, either the older child has already moved out or, if not, the teenagers can decide whether to add a drywall partition...
That probably makes planning the upper floor easier, but on the ground floor we still have the narrow corridor that I’m now trying to fix by changing the entrance.
ypg schrieb:
No
No
No Sorry, but as I showed earlier in the sketch, it needs to be more square because otherwise it won’t fit within the building boundaries (building permit/planning permission). This is clear because the diagonal, which is always longer than the longest side, hits the shorter side of the buildable plot.
ypg schrieb:
With your idea, you waste unnecessary space. On top of that, the parking maneuver still doesn’t work! I think with your idea I have much more area affected by the easement on the property line where I definitely won’t be sitting in a lounge chair if the neighbor’s car or their family is constantly passing by. --> not really usable and lost space.
ypg schrieb:
*Sigh*: Parking, parking maneuvers, kids, bikes, yard, sight lines, size, zoning, sight lines...
Just come home in slow motion. Parking is only possible with a Smart car, etc.
... and with the angled position, you also get the beautiful western sunlight into the house I have modeled the parking situation on the site plan using a scaled model. It’s indeed not great but works with a “normal car.” It just fits with a Touran, maybe needing some maneuvering.
If you reverse park, it also works with a van without maneuvering.
There’s also space for all the kids’ gear behind the carport. That doesn’t strictly reduce the parking space area.
About the western sunlight – yes, I’m working on that now. The kitchen will have to be redesigned.
kaho674 schrieb:
Really? Are there any standard turning circle sizes for normal cars anywhere? Like for a Golf, let’s say? And I don’t mean the technical specs from the manufacturer but how much space you actually need to plan for. City planners must know this – someone must have something on hand? Any ideas?
Although I don’t really like the angle, honey, sorry. I’d rather push the house further back. That would make the reverse parking a pretty long drive, right? Yes, a long reverse drive is always needed for either parking in or out.
A standard turning circle is 10–12m (33–39 feet).
I’m currently trying to fit that somehow into the site plan...
Similar topics