ᐅ Planning a Single-Family Home for a Family of Four, West Münsterland Region, Initial Architect’s Draft
Created on: 20 Oct 2025 12:17
-
-Malte-
Hello everyone,
after some time spent on the selection of our plot in the new development area, we have now started the planning phase. We have found an architect, and a very first draft (without incorporating our feedback yet) has recently been presented to us. We would like to gather ideas and suggestions here.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 456m² (rectangular, 20.7m wide and 22.0m long)
Slope: no, completely flat
Floor area ratio (FAR) for land use: 0.4
Floor space index (FSI): 0.8
Building envelope, building line, and boundary: 14m (46 feet) deep building envelope across the entire plot width
Edge development: ?
Number of parking spaces: space for 2 cars required
Number of storeys: 2 full storeys allowed (with shed or flat roof)
Roof type: with 2 full storeys a shed or flat roof is mandatory, with 1 full storey no restrictions
Architectural style: no restrictions
Orientation: no restrictions
Maximum heights/limits: base height max 0.5m (1.5 feet); eaves height max 6.5m (21 feet); ridge height max 11.0m (36 feet)
Further specifications: no dormers or roof protrusions allowed according to the development plan
Other: detailed information can easily be found online by searching "Bebauungsplan 8-23 Bocholt"
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: desired is a traditional brick-faced gable roof house typical for western Münsterland, with a fairly steep roof pitch. Construction as a solid masonry house.
Basement, storeys: built on a slab foundation without basement; living spaces planned either on ground floor and first floor or ground floor, first floor, and attic
Number of people, ages: 4 persons (38, 35, 5, 3)
Room needs on ground and first floors: living area (kitchen/dining/living), guest WC including small shower, master bedroom without separate dressing room, 2 children’s rooms, 1 office, 1 bathroom, sufficient storage space for everyday family needs
Office (family use or home office): 1 dedicated full-time home office used about 4 days/week
Overnight guests per year: very few, no guest room needed
Open or closed layout: middle ground
Conservative or modern design: middle ground
Open kitchen, kitchen island: kitchen tends to be open, possibly with slight visual separation
Number of dining seats: table for 6 persons
Fireplace: no
Music/sound system wall: TV to be located in the living area
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage desired for numerous bicycles, children’s vehicles, and other outdoor gear
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be included: the wish is for a classic single-family house for a family of four with fixed home office space. Not a "palace," but a house that functions well in everyday family life. The house should be realized as a "climate-friendly new build" (KFW300 without QNG).
About the House Design
Who created the design?
First draft by an independent architect (initial version, no details adjusted or feedback incorporated yet)
What do you particularly like? Why?
What do you not like? Why?
Price estimate from the architect/designer: none yet
Personal price limit for the house including fittings: 650,000€ (house including ancillary costs, kitchen, garage, driveway/terrace)
Preferred heating technology: heat pump (possibly ground-source heat pump if trench collector is feasible, otherwise air-to-water heat pump)
What can you do without?
- can do without: excessive hallway areas, possibly the small gable projections (dormers)
- cannot do without: our room program including sufficient storage, window areas for plenty of natural light
Why does the design look the way it does now?
The design is based on our wishes/room program and generally meets them. The staircase could be extended up to the attic in the draft, but for this layout, a finished attic would not be needed for space or cost reasons. It would likely remain as an unfinished attic accessed by a folding ladder.
Final comments
After some further consideration, we see two options:
We look forward to your thoughts and input.
Best regards,
Malte
after some time spent on the selection of our plot in the new development area, we have now started the planning phase. We have found an architect, and a very first draft (without incorporating our feedback yet) has recently been presented to us. We would like to gather ideas and suggestions here.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 456m² (rectangular, 20.7m wide and 22.0m long)
Slope: no, completely flat
Floor area ratio (FAR) for land use: 0.4
Floor space index (FSI): 0.8
Building envelope, building line, and boundary: 14m (46 feet) deep building envelope across the entire plot width
Edge development: ?
Number of parking spaces: space for 2 cars required
Number of storeys: 2 full storeys allowed (with shed or flat roof)
Roof type: with 2 full storeys a shed or flat roof is mandatory, with 1 full storey no restrictions
Architectural style: no restrictions
Orientation: no restrictions
Maximum heights/limits: base height max 0.5m (1.5 feet); eaves height max 6.5m (21 feet); ridge height max 11.0m (36 feet)
Further specifications: no dormers or roof protrusions allowed according to the development plan
Other: detailed information can easily be found online by searching "Bebauungsplan 8-23 Bocholt"
Homeowners’ Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: desired is a traditional brick-faced gable roof house typical for western Münsterland, with a fairly steep roof pitch. Construction as a solid masonry house.
Basement, storeys: built on a slab foundation without basement; living spaces planned either on ground floor and first floor or ground floor, first floor, and attic
Number of people, ages: 4 persons (38, 35, 5, 3)
Room needs on ground and first floors: living area (kitchen/dining/living), guest WC including small shower, master bedroom without separate dressing room, 2 children’s rooms, 1 office, 1 bathroom, sufficient storage space for everyday family needs
Office (family use or home office): 1 dedicated full-time home office used about 4 days/week
Overnight guests per year: very few, no guest room needed
Open or closed layout: middle ground
Conservative or modern design: middle ground
Open kitchen, kitchen island: kitchen tends to be open, possibly with slight visual separation
Number of dining seats: table for 6 persons
Fireplace: no
Music/sound system wall: TV to be located in the living area
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage desired for numerous bicycles, children’s vehicles, and other outdoor gear
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, also reasons why some things should or should not be included: the wish is for a classic single-family house for a family of four with fixed home office space. Not a "palace," but a house that functions well in everyday family life. The house should be realized as a "climate-friendly new build" (KFW300 without QNG).
About the House Design
Who created the design?
First draft by an independent architect (initial version, no details adjusted or feedback incorporated yet)
What do you particularly like? Why?
- The design fully covers our room program/specifications; all necessary rooms and sufficient storage space are included.
- Preferences such as the arrangement of kitchen/dining/living “around the corner” and similarly sized children’s rooms are included.
- The design as a gable roof house with two small gable projections (dormers/gables) is visually very appealing to us.
What do you not like? Why?
- Overall, the floor plan—especially the upper floor—does not appear efficient to us. The hallway area is clearly too large. The total living area is about 179m² (ground floor 94m² and upper floor 85m²), but it does not feel like that. For cost reasons alone, we aim for around 160m².
- The house is currently designed as 11m by 11m (36 by 36 feet) square, but we feel it should be stretched somewhat (e.g., 12m by 10m or similar) to better separate the kitchen and master bedroom. Probably the square shape was chosen to make the roof easier to develop.
- We suspect the current draft does not reach one full storey height yet (North Rhine-Westphalia: 3/4 rule) — adjustments to knee wall height and roof pitch may be necessary.
- Details need adjustment (e.g., remove pantry in kitchen to enlarge kitchen; doors; possibly add more roof windows; etc.).
Price estimate from the architect/designer: none yet
Personal price limit for the house including fittings: 650,000€ (house including ancillary costs, kitchen, garage, driveway/terrace)
Preferred heating technology: heat pump (possibly ground-source heat pump if trench collector is feasible, otherwise air-to-water heat pump)
What can you do without?
- can do without: excessive hallway areas, possibly the small gable projections (dormers)
- cannot do without: our room program including sufficient storage, window areas for plenty of natural light
Why does the design look the way it does now?
The design is based on our wishes/room program and generally meets them. The staircase could be extended up to the attic in the draft, but for this layout, a finished attic would not be needed for space or cost reasons. It would likely remain as an unfinished attic accessed by a folding ladder.
Final comments
After some further consideration, we see two options:
- Make the current design with the small dormers and room program on two floors more efficient and reduce it to about 160m². The attic would not be developed.
- Request an alternative design where the house is overall more compact and the attic is fully integrated (ground floor kitchen/dining/living, guest WC, utility room; first floor 2 children’s rooms, master bedroom, and bathroom; attic office and storage).
We look forward to your thoughts and input.
Best regards,
Malte
-Malte- schrieb:
Garage on the west side due to the expected nearby buildings, which will likely block the light early on, especially considering the federal road running along the west side of the development area. Your argument is hard to follow. The expected adjacent building is a single-family house. The sun can still reach over that. In addition, you have their garden area on the neighboring property. The priority should be to capture the sunlight from the west inside the house. With a closed west side, you will make the interior darker. The taller building should act as a noise barrier.
-Malte- schrieb:
Technical question: Is it possible to easily enlarge the bedroom on the upper floor so that the load-bearing walls on the ground and upper floors do not align? Otherwise, with this floor plan, it would be possible by slightly increasing the overall width of the house. Theoretically, yes. Here, however, the dormer dictates the partition wall.
I note that all rooms on the upper floor, except for the office, have window areas that are far too small. Everything else has already been said. I see a standard layout, but poorly and illogically designed.
-Malte- schrieb:
A floor plan quite similar in house type and layout from my point of view is the "Kern-Haus Aura," which fits the whole thing into 9.6m*12.6m (31.5 ft * 41.3 ft) and overall 159m² (1712 ft²). A much more valuable design. Also possible for you with a single garage. Swap living room and kitchen, placing the kitchen by the terrace—this would also allow for wardrobe cabinets in the center of the layout.
A few follow-up questions to make sure I fully understand your suggestions.
House Orientation
Is the recommendation to place the garage and the entire house on the east side of the plot, or to position the garage marked on the west side only up to the rear wall of the house? The orientation of the plot is not strictly south-facing, and with utility rooms and garage located in the (north)west, I had assumed that most of the sunlight during the day would be captured in the living areas and garden. The garage positioned far to the back probably resulted from our desire to have the option to park two cars on the property outside of the garage.
Could you please elaborate on how you mean swapping the kitchen and living room in the standard "Aura" floor plan? Basically understood — for the kitchen, you would suggest an L-shaped unit along the interior and rear walls, including an island, so that the floor-to-ceiling windows facing the garden remain? How exactly is the wardrobe solution meant? Enlarging the hallway towards the kitchen?
House Orientation
Is the recommendation to place the garage and the entire house on the east side of the plot, or to position the garage marked on the west side only up to the rear wall of the house? The orientation of the plot is not strictly south-facing, and with utility rooms and garage located in the (north)west, I had assumed that most of the sunlight during the day would be captured in the living areas and garden. The garage positioned far to the back probably resulted from our desire to have the option to park two cars on the property outside of the garage.
ypg schrieb:
Much more sophisticated design. Also possible for a single garage in your case. Swap the living room and kitchen, with the kitchen then next to the terrace, which also allows for wardrobe cabinets in the center of the layout.
Could you please elaborate on how you mean swapping the kitchen and living room in the standard "Aura" floor plan? Basically understood — for the kitchen, you would suggest an L-shaped unit along the interior and rear walls, including an island, so that the floor-to-ceiling windows facing the garden remain? How exactly is the wardrobe solution meant? Enlarging the hallway towards the kitchen?
-Malte- schrieb:
Could you explain a bit more how you mean the kitchen/living room swap in the standard "Aura" floor plan? Basically understood – you would suggest an L-shaped kitchen along the interior and back walls including an island, so that the floor-to-ceiling windows facing the garden are preserved? What exactly do you mean by the wardrobe solution? Enlarging the hallway towards the kitchen? Not really. That would be a customization of a type house Aura, which only coincidentally resembles the design of your architect’s project. However, you have an architect working for you. Did you give them the brief “similar to Aura”? Did you explicitly request captain’s gables?
-Malte- schrieb:
Client requirements Not according to that. And you could also do without it. So why go into the depths of customization now? That also takes effort. My comment was only meant as a starting point or a focus on something that, in my opinion, the architect did not succeed in: a house that simply works.
Using two utility rooms and dedicating one-third of the ground floor to them, I see as not well thought out.
Even less so shielding the west side from living spaces.
-Malte- schrieb:
House orientation
Is the recommendation to place the garage and the entire house on the east side of the plot, or to place the plotted garage on the west side at most up to the rear of the house? Definitely. Unless you have an eye condition or need to avoid daylight like Dracula, open up the west side of the house with window surfaces – at least respecting the required setback area.
Regarding the storage room: It would make sense to think about a small utility room on the upper floor instead of dedicating one-third of the ground floor to utility space. Laundry is created upstairs, so you can do the washing there, while a home office and multi-purpose/hobby room are better located on the ground floor.
Please read through other floor plan discussions here, for your own benefit – there are great suggestions on how to build efficiently.
By the way, the 20-meter (66-foot) plot width is a good standard that is sufficient for a side garage, including double garages or with a carport.
D
derdietmar21 Oct 2025 10:55Hello,
Regarding the architect’s plan and considering the densely built surroundings, I find the floor plan design rather uninspired.
To the west, it is likely that the neighbor will build close to the boundary. Additionally, their driveway is also located there. Therefore, placing the garage on the west side is not a bad idea—even if it might initially seem counterintuitive. The main house and garage should then form an angle on the west side that helps shield the garden.
The garage (gray) has a depth of 6 m (20 feet) and a width of 6.5 m (21 feet). The foyer and utility room are attached to it before entering the main building. On the ground floor, there is a guest toilet and office on the north side, as well as kitchen, dining, and living areas. The staircase is located centrally along the west wall of the main building. Most likely, a single-flight open staircase would fit there. Details should be planned by the professional who gets paid for it.
Depending on the budget, a flat roof with a third recessed floor could be the icing on the cake. This could also allow the main building to be shorter.
Best regards
Regarding the architect’s plan and considering the densely built surroundings, I find the floor plan design rather uninspired.
To the west, it is likely that the neighbor will build close to the boundary. Additionally, their driveway is also located there. Therefore, placing the garage on the west side is not a bad idea—even if it might initially seem counterintuitive. The main house and garage should then form an angle on the west side that helps shield the garden.
The garage (gray) has a depth of 6 m (20 feet) and a width of 6.5 m (21 feet). The foyer and utility room are attached to it before entering the main building. On the ground floor, there is a guest toilet and office on the north side, as well as kitchen, dining, and living areas. The staircase is located centrally along the west wall of the main building. Most likely, a single-flight open staircase would fit there. Details should be planned by the professional who gets paid for it.
Depending on the budget, a flat roof with a third recessed floor could be the icing on the cake. This could also allow the main building to be shorter.
Best regards
ypg schrieb:
Did you tell him the requirement “similar to Aura”? Did you specifically mention the desire for captain’s gables?
No, not after that. And you could probably skip it altogether. So why dive deep into customization now? That also requires effort. My comment was only meant as a starting point or to highlight something that, in my opinion, the architect didn’t succeed with: a house that simply works.
Using two of these utility rooms and thus one-third of the ground floor for them seems poorly thought out to me.
Even less sensible is shielding the west side from living areas.
Definitely. Unless you have an eye condition or need to avoid light like Dracula, open up the west side of the house at least with the necessary setback and install windows there.
And regarding the storage room: it would be sensible to consider having a small utility room on the upper floor instead of dedicating one-third of the ground floor to utility space. Laundry is generated upstairs, so washing can take place there, while an office and multi-purpose/hobby room would better fit on the ground floor.
Please read through the floor plan discussions elsewhere on the forum for your own interest – there are excellent suggestions on how to build.
By the way, the 20-meter (66 feet) plot width is a good standard that allows for a side garage, even a double garage or with a carport.
No, no specification for captain’s gables or a requirement to distribute the rooms between ground floor and upper floor. In the end, we defined and wrote down which rooms we need, and for example, for the office, we explicitly made no specification whether it should be on the ground floor, upper floor, or attic. Otherwise, we expressed the wish to build a house with a pitched roof – definitely no flat roof, and due to the requirement for a steep roof pitch, a shed/mono-pitched roof is basically also ruled out for us.
I have been reading the forum and gathering “experience” here for years. So I’m certainly aware of the theoretical possibilities but haven’t come across a floor plan over the years where I said that’s it and it should be implemented exactly like that. That’s precisely why, apart from the basic room program, we made no specific demands so it can be designed freely. We don’t have the expertise ourselves, as our professions are in completely different fields.
The question now is how to proceed most effectively. I think the only sensible approach is to clearly communicate our criticism points and point out that it won’t be possible to fix them with just one or two adjustments to the current draft. The question is whether that will get us to our goal or if we need to provide more specific input so that it heads in the right direction.
derdietmar schrieb:
Hello,
For an architect’s plan, and considering the tight neighboring development, I find the floor plan design rather uninspired.
On the west side, it is likely that the neighbor will build close to the boundary. Also, that side is where their driveway is. Therefore, placing the garage on the west side is not a bad idea – even though it might seem counterintuitive at first. The residence and garage could then form an angle on the west side that screens the garden.
The garage (gray) is 6 meters (20 feet) deep and 6.5 meters (21 feet) wide. A foyer and utility/technical room connect to it before entering the main building volume. On the ground floor are a guest WC and office on the north side, as well as kitchen, dining, and living areas. The staircase is located in the middle on the west wall of the main building volume. Presumably, even an open single-flight staircase would fit there. Details should be planned by the professional who is paid for it.
Depending on budget, a flat roof with a third recessed floor could be the crowning touch. That would also allow the main building to be shorter.
Best regards Interesting idea, many thanks for working it out! Completely different but ultimately something we could basically imagine.
Whether it’s realistic, I don’t know – for example, we actually don’t need a double garage, and this concept only works if the garage stretches the appropriate width so the house shifts far enough to the east. It really depends on how we proceed. Should we suggest ideas like this to our architect but not push him to copy them exactly? Our original idea was to give him maximum freedom for efficient and sensible planning.
-Malte- schrieb:
I’m not sure if that’s realistic – for example, we actually don’t need a double garage.I agree. Why plan an oversized garage that dictates the layout of the rather limited plot if it’s not necessary? derdietmar schrieb:
In the west, it’s probably expected that the neighbor will build close to the boundary. Their driveway is also there.That can be seen positively, as it means the taller house shifts further west. A garage and driveway have the advantage that no really tall structures are placed near the neighbor. Although our street isn’t sacred, it should be noted that we all live next to the neighbor’s carport on the west side, and that is well accepted. Regarding the captain’s gable: the downside is that not only the gable determines the wall and room widths, but the required symmetry often results in an average layout—unless you specifically want it.
Similar topics