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:
You asked about a structural height of 2.75 m (9 ft). Structural height is different from floor-to-floor height.
There is floor-to-floor height:
This is the distance from the unfinished subfloor of one level to the unfinished subfloor of the level above. Floor-to-floor height covers the complete height of a story, including the entire ceiling thickness and the floor structure.
Structural height and clear room height:
It is important to distinguish the clear room height from structural height, which is defined as the distance between the top of the unfinished subfloor and the underside of the unfinished ceiling—meaning without including the floor structure and the ceiling plaster. The final clear room height is determined after subtracting the height of the floor structure and the ceiling plaster.
Source: Wilms Haus AG
And a staircase always needs to cover the floor-to-floor height.
@kbt09: Thank you for the clear explanation and the picture. Ok. So, we never discussed floor-to-floor height with the site manager. In my opinion, it was about the difference between the clear shell construction height and the finished room height. Here, he mentioned 20-25cm (floor construction in the ground floor) (8-10 inches). Is that realistic?
kbt09 schrieb:
For people over 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) tall, going down the stairs is uncomfortable.Even without hitting your head, when approaching the edge you will instinctively duck your head without realizing it, which can be the start of a chronic problem. For this reason, I generally advise against designing houses with clearances that are just barely enough according to the calculations. Kerstin also mentioned, at the spot I linked a few hours ago, that a walking person is in motion, which adds dynamic height. A standard head clearance according to DIN of 2 m (6 ft 7 in) usually considers someone about 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) tall—appropriate for my generation, but rarely for that of their children. So, the seemingly identical 2 m (6 ft 7 in) clearance for stairs is actually not the same as when standing up from the toilet, which is an action rarely done with a sudden jump.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
@11ant Yes, I agree. We are all pretty short here, just over 1.7 meters (5 feet 7 inches) by a couple of fingers, but you do have guests sometimes, and I didn’t want to put a yellow-black hazard stripe on the edge.
However, if kaho’s calculation is correct, then even 2.10 meters (6 feet 11 inches) should be possible. And I don’t think anyone moves that dynamically when going up the stairs.
It’s definitely important to pass this on to the site manager for the architect.
By the way, did you already reply a few days ago? I received an email but then couldn’t find the post...
However, if kaho’s calculation is correct, then even 2.10 meters (6 feet 11 inches) should be possible. And I don’t think anyone moves that dynamically when going up the stairs.
It’s definitely important to pass this on to the site manager for the architect.
By the way, did you already reply a few days ago? I received an email but then couldn’t find the post...
Tolentino schrieb:
By the way, did you actually respond a few days ago? I received an email but couldn’t find the post... Do you mean you got an email notification that I had posted, but it turned out to be a false alarm? – I think last week I posted something but deleted it right away because my previous post was still within the editing time. So I didn’t need to start a new one, just add the information there instead.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics