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:
Theoretically, you could even skip the door entirely since the entrance is already offset.
With three kids? Hmm. I often close the door when my partner turns up the music and I’m reading upstairs. Since we got the new (very modest) Teufel system, even more often.
kaho674 schrieb:
Since we got the new (very modest) Teufel system, even more often.I hope "modest" refers to the size/price category and not your perception of its quality?Your point is valid, though all the other rooms still have doors...
Pinky0301 schrieb:
A larger door to the living area would be really great. If a sliding door isn’t possible, maybe a double door could work? Veto. That would create a huge contrast with the path leading to it.
kaho674 schrieb:
Since we got the new (very modest) Teufel system, Harman isn’t what it used to be, and Dieter Burmester has even passed away. What can you really expect from the high-end sector nowadays?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Tolentino schrieb:
I hope "modest" refers to the size/price range and not your perception of quality?
Exactly, we only spent 800 euros on a compact system. We are very satisfied. Great speakers.But in this new post, since you respond so quickly:
So, here are the extra costs:
double-leaf door in the living room €580.00
ceiling height increase on the ground floor shell from 2.75 m (9 ft) to 3.00 m (10 ft)
€3,800.00
windows cannot be higher than 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in). The large stairwell window is also something the general contractor is rather reluctant to do, but they are apparently still waiting for a quote.
This suggests reverting back to 2.75 m (9 ft) so the living room height would be finished at 2.55 m (8 ft 4 in) and the windows at 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in) would be sufficiently high.
And maybe the first stair step wouldn’t be so bad anymore, since one step could be saved?
So, here are the extra costs:
double-leaf door in the living room €580.00
ceiling height increase on the ground floor shell from 2.75 m (9 ft) to 3.00 m (10 ft)
€3,800.00
windows cannot be higher than 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in). The large stairwell window is also something the general contractor is rather reluctant to do, but they are apparently still waiting for a quote.
This suggests reverting back to 2.75 m (9 ft) so the living room height would be finished at 2.55 m (8 ft 4 in) and the windows at 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in) would be sufficiently high.
And maybe the first stair step wouldn’t be so bad anymore, since one step could be saved?
kaho674 schrieb:
Yes, exactly, we only spent 800 Euros on a compact system. We are very satisfied. Great speakers.
Tolentino schrieb:
Windows do not go higher than 2.25 m (7 ft 5 in).We didn’t have any manufacturers who said no to heights below 240 cm (7 ft 10 in).https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics