ᐅ New Single-Family Home Construction – Join Us on Our Journey!
Created on: 4 Aug 2022 16:13
G
gregman22
Dear community,
We are finally getting a step closer to realizing our dream of building a single-family home.
The plot has been purchased, building plans have been reviewed, construction method decided, and so on. We have now commissioned the architect of the general contractor (GC) of our choice with the planning task and are currently fine-tuning the house design. I would love to take you along on this journey and incorporate your valuable feedback.
At this stage, the focus is on the house design.
Basic data:
Plot: 1062m2 (11,433 sq ft); approx. 25.5m x 41.64m (84 ft x 137 ft)
Orientation: Northwest -> The arrow in the screenshot of the 3D view points south
Desired room layout:
Ground floor:
First floor:
Attic:
Note: I am still discussing this with the architect. Due to the hipped roof shape, the actual living area has shrunk too much. Therefore, further discussion is needed to accommodate the other rooms. I had underestimated the ratio of gross floor area to usable living space.
Basement:
Additional plans:
Now to my first questions for you:
My biggest construction challenge at the moment is the layout of the attic. There are two alternatives:
- Change the roof type, which would increase costs but provide more usable living space in the attic
- Give up the playroom on the first floor, convert it into a guest room, and build only the two offices in the attic (no guest room or bathroom)
Thank you in advance for your comments.
We are finally getting a step closer to realizing our dream of building a single-family home.
The plot has been purchased, building plans have been reviewed, construction method decided, and so on. We have now commissioned the architect of the general contractor (GC) of our choice with the planning task and are currently fine-tuning the house design. I would love to take you along on this journey and incorporate your valuable feedback.
At this stage, the focus is on the house design.
Basic data:
Plot: 1062m2 (11,433 sq ft); approx. 25.5m x 41.64m (84 ft x 137 ft)
Orientation: Northwest -> The arrow in the screenshot of the 3D view points south
Desired room layout:
Ground floor:
- Large living/dining area with adjacent (but separable) kitchen at the bottom left, plus a gallery overlooking the first floor
- Utility room
- Guest toilet
- Garage
- Separate apartment at the top right with its own entrance for parents-in-law
First floor:
- Gallery overlooking the ground floor
- 2 children’s bedrooms with a shared bathroom
- 1 playroom (initially a home cinema room, later to be repurposed) above the garage
- Master wing with main bedroom, dressing room, and bathroom
Attic:
Note: I am still discussing this with the architect. Due to the hipped roof shape, the actual living area has shrunk too much. Therefore, further discussion is needed to accommodate the other rooms. I had underestimated the ratio of gross floor area to usable living space.
- 2 separate offices
- 1 guest bedroom
- 1 small guest bathroom
Basement:
- 1 technical room
- 1 laundry room
- 1 storage room
- Large fitness room
- Wellness room with sauna
Additional plans:
- Air-to-air heat pump or air-to-water heat pump
- Photovoltaic system with/without battery storage
- Possible pool (3.5/4m x 8m or 3.5/4m x 12m) with heat pump (and countercurrent system)
- Sauna in the basement room
- Air conditioning for various rooms
- Smart home system – most likely via KNX
- Garden: Currently planning 2 terraces – one to the left, slightly more to the south, and one facing the main part of the plot further north
Now to my first questions for you:
- How do the floor plans strike you? Do they make sense in terms of the dynamics of family life?
- The location of the separate apartment was chosen based on our wish. We wanted a strict, clearly defined spatial separation with a separate entrance. Do you have any comments on this?
- Do you consider the utility rooms in the basement to be adequately sized (considering KNX, heat pump, etc.)?
My biggest construction challenge at the moment is the layout of the attic. There are two alternatives:
- Change the roof type, which would increase costs but provide more usable living space in the attic
- Give up the playroom on the first floor, convert it into a guest room, and build only the two offices in the attic (no guest room or bathroom)
Thank you in advance for your comments.
S
Sunshine3877 Nov 2022 23:32I have a different opinion regarding a gallery. I enjoy going downstairs from the bedroom to the living room every morning via the gallery staircase. I know many other houses without an open space or gallery, and I always find those a bit claustrophobic. In my opinion, there is nothing better than making the house feel airy and spacious by having high ceilings. Personally, this makes me feel twice as comfortable and it simply looks impressive. So, under no circumstances should you remove the gallery! It looks very stylish and spacious in the pictures! Those who call a gallery wasted space usually have never lived in a house with that beautiful sense of space...
To put your mind at ease: I know many beautiful houses that are sometimes even built up to 1 meter (3 feet) higher to allow space for a high basement (large windows, etc.). And even then, a nice staircase looks very appealing. You can also solve this cleverly with just a 60cm (2 feet) elevation by planning a gentle slope from the street level toward the house (at a distance of 6 meters (20 feet) from the street, that would be only a 10% incline, which can be skillfully managed with steps or a pathway. There are good landscape gardeners who can make the 60cm (2 feet) elevation barely noticeable.
However, it may be that you are limited in height and the building plan / planning permission does not allow an elevation for the desired house. In that case, you will have to look further. I would not give the architect a single cent for this so far. They should be capable of clarifying everything with the building authority before their design, especially concerning flood protection. That is not your responsibility! And the fact that they apparently cannot even design a legal floor plan raises questions for me! The rules are very clear! Everyone here knows that you cannot place one penthouse level (setback floor) on top of another penthouse level (that would be completely unreasonable). An architect must obviously understand what constitutes a full storey, a penthouse level, and a top floor that is not to be considered a penthouse, and above all, must plan accordingly.
To put your mind at ease: I know many beautiful houses that are sometimes even built up to 1 meter (3 feet) higher to allow space for a high basement (large windows, etc.). And even then, a nice staircase looks very appealing. You can also solve this cleverly with just a 60cm (2 feet) elevation by planning a gentle slope from the street level toward the house (at a distance of 6 meters (20 feet) from the street, that would be only a 10% incline, which can be skillfully managed with steps or a pathway. There are good landscape gardeners who can make the 60cm (2 feet) elevation barely noticeable.
However, it may be that you are limited in height and the building plan / planning permission does not allow an elevation for the desired house. In that case, you will have to look further. I would not give the architect a single cent for this so far. They should be capable of clarifying everything with the building authority before their design, especially concerning flood protection. That is not your responsibility! And the fact that they apparently cannot even design a legal floor plan raises questions for me! The rules are very clear! Everyone here knows that you cannot place one penthouse level (setback floor) on top of another penthouse level (that would be completely unreasonable). An architect must obviously understand what constitutes a full storey, a penthouse level, and a top floor that is not to be considered a penthouse, and above all, must plan accordingly.
G
gregman227 Nov 2022 23:372-3 neighboring houses are built on higher ground, including the original older buildings. There are 2 newer houses on the same street that were built at ground level.
G
gregman227 Nov 2022 23:38Sunshine387 schrieb:
I have a different opinion regarding a gallery. Every morning, when I walk down from the bedroom to the living room via the gallery staircase, I really enjoy it. I know many other houses without an open void or gallery, and I always find those spaces a bit claustrophobic. In my view, there is nothing better than making a house feel airy and spacious with high ceilings. It makes me feel twice as comfortable and adds a lot of character. So under no circumstances should you remove the gallery! It looks very stylish and generous in the pictures! People who describe a gallery as wasted space usually have never lived in a house with this kind of wonderful spatial feeling…
And to reassure you: I know many beautiful houses that are sometimes built up to 1 meter (3 feet 3 inches) higher to accommodate a tall basement with large windows, for example. You can also cleverly solve this with just 60 centimeters (2 feet), by planning the landscape with a gentle slope from street level toward the house when the elevation is small. For a 6-meter (20-foot) distance from the street, that would only be about a 10% incline, which can be easily managed with steps or a path. There are professional garden landscapers who can make those 60 centimeters barely noticeable.Thank you, that is a really great contribution that gives me encouragement!S
Sunshine3877 Nov 2022 23:48And a tip for the architect: §45 I 1 BayBO. It clearly states what is allowed in the roof. It is not uncommon that, even with a full storey according to the development plan, there are basically three floors, where above the attic storey an additional usable space is squeezed in that is legally not considered a habitable room.
Oh! 🙁
I wasn’t aware of the flood protection zone issue. Did you overlook mentioning it, or did I miss it when reading?
No, but you should ask him about it, keep that concern or fact in mind, and understand that some of the planning might be on shaky ground because of it. Since I can’t recall seeing it mentioned in this thread, I assume you forgot about it?!
Edit: I quickly skimmed through some of your older threads and found no reference to the flood zone.
I tend to see it more objectively: there are many beautiful things that appeal, but you don’t have to (or can’t) include everything. Everyone deals with this differently: open Pinterest quickly, and suddenly you must add 2-3 things to the design... until the next highlight appears on the list. To me, a house becomes less interesting when every corner is filled with all that stuff. You can’t really appreciate the home because it feels overloaded.
For me, a “gem” is something you could also do without. If I don’t have a blue accessory for my wardrobe, my blue eyeshadow does the trick. I’m reluctant to give up my jacket. That takes me back to a woman who looks overloaded with jewelry, rather than subtly accentuating her outfit with a few pieces.
Your post reads as if you would rather give up a child than the gallery. To clarify again: it’s not a question of “do I want it or not,” but the fact that some parts have to be removed or changed. I like my gallery too, but I don’t have to give up a kids’ room either. You have to see the house as a whole.
That said, there is a lot of potential with this house, given the space level including the basement, the granny flat, open window fronts, etc. Still, a gallery is a nice-to-have feature that one could probably forgo if other potential and a more stylish design or planning are in place. You can also create another eye-catcher from a non-void space, for example by highlighting the staircase with several double casement windows in a row going up. But no one is going to search for that on Pinterest. Or with an open roof space...
And the ones without basements? It’s about the basement level, right? I would continue to hope for interesting designs and ideas from the architect and wait to see what else he can offer. Ultimately, I remind you of a budget limit that could easily be extended if you push your wishes too far.
The 60cm (24 inches) are unfortunate but, in my opinion, manageable with the planned outdoor design.
I wasn’t aware of the flood protection zone issue. Did you overlook mentioning it, or did I miss it when reading?
gregman22 schrieb:
1) Flood protection apparently isn’t as straightforward as assumed.
gregman22 schrieb:
but you can’t expect me as an amateur to draw the right conclusions from that, right?
No, but you should ask him about it, keep that concern or fact in mind, and understand that some of the planning might be on shaky ground because of it. Since I can’t recall seeing it mentioned in this thread, I assume you forgot about it?!
Edit: I quickly skimmed through some of your older threads and found no reference to the flood zone.
gregman22 schrieb:
According to our taste, the gallery and this interior space are successful – we like it.
I tend to see it more objectively: there are many beautiful things that appeal, but you don’t have to (or can’t) include everything. Everyone deals with this differently: open Pinterest quickly, and suddenly you must add 2-3 things to the design... until the next highlight appears on the list. To me, a house becomes less interesting when every corner is filled with all that stuff. You can’t really appreciate the home because it feels overloaded.
gregman22 schrieb:
We don’t want to give up our little gem, the “gallery.”
Do you have any creative ideas?
For me, a “gem” is something you could also do without. If I don’t have a blue accessory for my wardrobe, my blue eyeshadow does the trick. I’m reluctant to give up my jacket. That takes me back to a woman who looks overloaded with jewelry, rather than subtly accentuating her outfit with a few pieces.
Sunshine387 schrieb:
So under NO circumstances remove the gallery!
Your post reads as if you would rather give up a child than the gallery. To clarify again: it’s not a question of “do I want it or not,” but the fact that some parts have to be removed or changed. I like my gallery too, but I don’t have to give up a kids’ room either. You have to see the house as a whole.
That said, there is a lot of potential with this house, given the space level including the basement, the granny flat, open window fronts, etc. Still, a gallery is a nice-to-have feature that one could probably forgo if other potential and a more stylish design or planning are in place. You can also create another eye-catcher from a non-void space, for example by highlighting the staircase with several double casement windows in a row going up. But no one is going to search for that on Pinterest. Or with an open roof space...
gregman22 schrieb:
2-3 neighboring houses are built on higher ground, including the original older buildings. There are 2 newer houses on the same street built at ground level.
And the ones without basements? It’s about the basement level, right? I would continue to hope for interesting designs and ideas from the architect and wait to see what else he can offer. Ultimately, I remind you of a budget limit that could easily be extended if you push your wishes too far.
The 60cm (24 inches) are unfortunate but, in my opinion, manageable with the planned outdoor design.
gregman22 schrieb:
In the worst-case scenario, we might have to raise the ground floor by up to 60 cm (24 inches) – that would be a total disaster for me.
At this point, I really wonder why this is only being realized now. gregman22 schrieb:
Honestly, I am very curious to see what the response will be. I definitely won’t accept that.
The architect did mention earlier that we have to consider flood protection, but he can’t expect me, an amateur, to draw the right conclusions from that, can he?
That it now might suddenly mean a 60 cm (24 inches) increase is crazy. I can’t even imagine how our plan would hold up if that happens. I could still accept a minor adjustment like 10 cm (4 inches). I find it strange that the architect is only now raising this issue, but even if it had come up earlier, he is not responsible for the elevation itself. Did he advise you when buying the plot and withhold any information about flooding? Buying a house in a flood-prone area was your decision. Usually, this is clearly indicated by the local authorities. So you should be upset with yourselves at least as much as with the architect.
Sunshine387 schrieb:
Those who call a gallery wasted space usually have never lived in a house with this beautiful sense of openness... A sense of openness is one thing, sound transmission another. At least the kids’ rooms have their own extra hallway here. Otherwise, spaces like that are really noisy. I know a couple who had a gallery and wouldn’t build it again.
Overall, when I compare the first and last design, I somehow preferred the first one. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing to have to start over. Even though I understand that after such a long planning period, you want to reach the finish line.
In any case, I wish you the best of luck!
Similar topics