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
Thank you for the additional input; this always helps us move forward!
Since early December, our preference has been leaning toward the I-shape ("linear layout"). We see clear advantages in many areas, which you have now also highlighted in large parts (more attractive entrance to the open living area, increased kitchen workspace, simpler utility connections, "framed" terrace). The L-shape ("corner layout") has still been on our minds from time to time, mainly because we originally thought we didn’t want everything completely open in one large room without any separation. However, we now believe that we want to proceed in the direction of the I-shape ("linear layout"). In further detailed planning, we will look at how to visually and functionally distinguish the different areas in a subtle way.
However, a related question has come up that I held back in my post two days ago. Should we position the entrance at the side of the house or at the front? I have sketched both variants.
Entrance at the front (street side):
Entrance at the side (driveway):
[ATTACH alt="2025-12-27 Reihenanordnung - Eingang Seite - bearbeitet.png"]94625[/ATTACH]
The general floor plan is surprisingly little affected by the entrance position. The open living area and the utility/technical room remain practically the same. The cloakroom and guest bathroom are arranged differently but keep almost the same shape and size. The hallway area probably does not differ significantly either, although we are uncertain about suitable passage widths for the different options.
Our thoughts on the front entrance:
- The open living area might be slightly larger (about 3m² (32 sq ft)) because the central wall shifts slightly downward
- A nicer sightline from the front door into the open living area (?)
- The exterior facing the street looks better if the entrance is directly visible and nicely designed from outside (?)
- More views from the street into the house
- Possible roof extension or canopy over the entrance
- Window planning would need to be revised
Our thoughts on the side entrance:
- More direct/quick access from parking into the house
- Additional door from hallway to kitchen possible (convenient for bringing in groceries or quickly fetching something from the kitchen)
- Entrance/hallway less visible from the street
- Easier access from entrance to garage
- Roof covering for the entrance is unclear (e.g., a carport in front of the garage may not comply with the 9m (30 ft) setback building regulation)
We would appreciate any suggestions or ideas on this as well.
Best regards,
-Malte-
Since early December, our preference has been leaning toward the I-shape ("linear layout"). We see clear advantages in many areas, which you have now also highlighted in large parts (more attractive entrance to the open living area, increased kitchen workspace, simpler utility connections, "framed" terrace). The L-shape ("corner layout") has still been on our minds from time to time, mainly because we originally thought we didn’t want everything completely open in one large room without any separation. However, we now believe that we want to proceed in the direction of the I-shape ("linear layout"). In further detailed planning, we will look at how to visually and functionally distinguish the different areas in a subtle way.
However, a related question has come up that I held back in my post two days ago. Should we position the entrance at the side of the house or at the front? I have sketched both variants.
Entrance at the front (street side):
Entrance at the side (driveway):
[ATTACH alt="2025-12-27 Reihenanordnung - Eingang Seite - bearbeitet.png"]94625[/ATTACH]
The general floor plan is surprisingly little affected by the entrance position. The open living area and the utility/technical room remain practically the same. The cloakroom and guest bathroom are arranged differently but keep almost the same shape and size. The hallway area probably does not differ significantly either, although we are uncertain about suitable passage widths for the different options.
Our thoughts on the front entrance:
- The open living area might be slightly larger (about 3m² (32 sq ft)) because the central wall shifts slightly downward
- A nicer sightline from the front door into the open living area (?)
- The exterior facing the street looks better if the entrance is directly visible and nicely designed from outside (?)
- More views from the street into the house
- Possible roof extension or canopy over the entrance
- Window planning would need to be revised
Our thoughts on the side entrance:
- More direct/quick access from parking into the house
- Additional door from hallway to kitchen possible (convenient for bringing in groceries or quickly fetching something from the kitchen)
- Entrance/hallway less visible from the street
- Easier access from entrance to garage
- Roof covering for the entrance is unclear (e.g., a carport in front of the garage may not comply with the 9m (30 ft) setback building regulation)
We would appreciate any suggestions or ideas on this as well.
Best regards,
-Malte-
I believe both options are clearly visible and functionally quite similar.
Basically, I prefer an entrance on the gable side, and I’m less fond of the combination or "conflict" between driveway and main entrance, especially considering personal experiences with safety. In the plan and the image shared by @ypg, the layout seems too cramped for my taste, and I wouldn’t build it without a platform anyway. We have a similar setup (but on the gable side), and there are only two of us without children. The mentioned advantages mostly come down to the "better" connection between garage, kitchen, and groceries. However, this could also be achieved in the floor plan if you have a door on the side at the rear of the garage, allowing access to the kitchen via the terrace.
I simply like a nice and properly designed entrance area.
I often see the word “nicer” associated with the front entrance version, whereas it is rarely mentioned for the side entrance option; that alone is already important to me, especially considering the benefits mentioned for the interior layout.
Basically, I prefer an entrance on the gable side, and I’m less fond of the combination or "conflict" between driveway and main entrance, especially considering personal experiences with safety. In the plan and the image shared by @ypg, the layout seems too cramped for my taste, and I wouldn’t build it without a platform anyway. We have a similar setup (but on the gable side), and there are only two of us without children. The mentioned advantages mostly come down to the "better" connection between garage, kitchen, and groceries. However, this could also be achieved in the floor plan if you have a door on the side at the rear of the garage, allowing access to the kitchen via the terrace.
I simply like a nice and properly designed entrance area.
I often see the word “nicer” associated with the front entrance version, whereas it is rarely mentioned for the side entrance option; that alone is already important to me, especially considering the benefits mentioned for the interior layout.
Arauki11 schrieb:
Regarding the plan and the picture from @ypg, it seems too cramped to me, and I wouldn’t do it without a platform anyway.?? There is a platform though! And the garage has internal dimensions of 4 meters (13 feet). What exactly is cramped there? In the end, you actually get more safe corner space than with a house platform that is positioned in front.I’m just speaking visually and intuitively here, but I think I might prefer the other side because the driveway and main entrance would be separate. However, as I mentioned, both options work for me.
The two lists from the original poster seemed to support that idea for me, as I saw more advantages in that option.
The two lists from the original poster seemed to support that idea for me, as I saw more advantages in that option.
First of all, Happy New Year! 🙂
To understand better: Which safety aspect are you referring to exactly? Is it about the risk that children or people coming out of the house might come into conflict with cars entering the driveway? Honestly, I hadn’t considered that a potential hazard before, and currently, we have a similar side entrance without a step or anything like that. In our new development area, everyone drives slowly, especially when turning into the driveway.
From your two responses, I gather that this decision is probably just a matter of personal preference. 😉
To understand better: Which safety aspect are you referring to exactly? Is it about the risk that children or people coming out of the house might come into conflict with cars entering the driveway? Honestly, I hadn’t considered that a potential hazard before, and currently, we have a similar side entrance without a step or anything like that. In our new development area, everyone drives slowly, especially when turning into the driveway.
From your two responses, I gather that this decision is probably just a matter of personal preference. 😉
Similar topics