ᐅ Manufactured wood house providers for single-family homes in Lower Saxony

11ant schrieb:

This finally reads like a usable basis for design development, although I keep repeating that "rooms of equal size for equally loved children" is a parental mindset that the children usually neither express nor appreciate. There are always reasons for complaints about feeling treated unfairly compared to siblings, and these cannot be changed by facts. Besides, the kids themselves have completely different criteria for what makes a great bedroom.

That’s why “roughly equal size.” Nobody should have to live like Harry Potter in a broom closet while another child gets a bright 20m² (215 sq ft) room.

11ant schrieb:

How is a redundant breakfast area supposed to save space? – I see a contradiction here.

Why redundant? The breakfast area avoids the morning back-and-forth of carrying food from the kitchen to the dining room. I get up at 7:15 a.m. and leave the house at 7:30 a.m. Time is very limited. Of course, it doesn’t have to be solved as a kitchen island with breakfast bars.

11ant schrieb:

No piano without a zigzag wall (see @chrisw81)!

I didn’t find the context quickly. The piano seems to fit quite well, doesn’t it?

11ant schrieb:

Then, apart from exactly what was the core objective, nothing else was missed.

At this point, I ask myself whether the goal is realistically achievable based on the current design or if the €7,500 spent on planning plus time should be written off and the project restarted with the current knowledge.
The main problems, all of which I find understandable, have been clearly identified by you:
1. Asymmetry in the building structure where none should exist
2. Planning with a basement, although it would be more sensible without one
3. Ignoring specific construction grids in a build-method-neutral design

On the other hand, I see:
1. A floor plan that I am overall quite satisfied with in terms of layout and space, even if, for example, the basement is removed and the study is turned into a technical/laundry room.
2. An exterior view that I find quite appealing overall once the “symmetry issue” is addressed. Since the classic town villa look was avoided, I see the two full stories rather as an advantage in terms of flexibility and complexity reduction.

Ben3001 schrieb:

I didn’t find the context that quickly. The piano actually fits quite well, doesn’t it?

No, nothing against your piano, an insider: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-einfamilienhaus-mit-ca-150-qm-auf-hinterliegergrundstueck.45070/page-15#post-621306

Ben3001 schrieb:

For me, the question here is whether the goal is realistically achievable based on the current design or whether the invested €7,500 for planning plus time should be written off and a fresh start be made with the current knowledge. [...]
1. A floor plan that I am overall quite satisfied with in terms of room layout and space, even if, for example, the basement is omitted and the study turned into a technical/laundry room.

Yes, write off the learning costs for this design phase 1 and 3 (in my opinion not phase 1 to 3); don’t try to fix the current design but relaunch it, meaning no repurposing of rooms from this version either.

Ben3001 schrieb:

3. Ignoring specific construction grids in design-neutral planning

A whole bunch of small flaws that do not critically undermine the design; more important are the conceptual flaws. I already pointed out on Saturday and Sunday that the roof shape and the staircase not extending into the attic space were approached incorrectly. Sensitivity to the grid naturally emerges when sketching, for example, using graph paper: 5 mm major step = 62.5 cm (2 ft 0 in), 1 mm minor step = 12.5 cm (5 in) (= scale 1:125; personally, for preliminary designs I also work in 1:160 scale when I use a scale at all). But first and foremost, focus on concept and discussion, not rapidly moving to the drawing phase. Like on the highway, you shouldn’t jump into the fast lane immediately. Laypersons tend to be impatient during planning, and "client-friendly" architects often adapt to that.

Ben3001 schrieb:

1. Asymmetry in the building mass where none belongs [...]
2. An exterior view that I find quite appealing overall once the "asymmetry" is corrected. Since the classic townhouse look was avoided, I see the two full stories rather as an advantage in terms of flexibility and reducing complexity.

Forget about symmetry for a long time; it will come much later and will appear where it fits or can be easily introduced afterwards. At the beginning, symmetry has no place either way, since forcing or avoiding it are equally harmful. Preventing a "suburban villa" appearance is already sufficiently accomplished by a non-square floor plan and a half-hip (Dutch) roof. Don’t worry!

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

But the main thing is to start with the concept and discussion first, not to jump quickly to the drawing stage.

See also: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-einfamilienhaus-2-vollgeschosse-ca-170-qm-leichte-hanglage.46522/page-4#post-649306 – the homeowners are driven by the urge to focus on the floor plan during planning.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Ben3001 schrieb:

The space is not small. Shouldn’t a slightly larger dining table fit there?

I hadn’t checked that; I just stuck with the statement that it has been like this so far. I would simply want to make sure that it would be possible. I just looked again, and from what I see, a longer table should fit as well. This is probably due to the small bay window or seating window, which I usually criticize otherwise. I reviewed the plan again, and this could become a nice corner, but it would definitely need to be planned deliberately beforehand and executed well. It is 80cm (31 inches) deep and could therefore be more of an extended, comfortable seating area within the house if designed accordingly, rather than “just” the usual window seat with a wooden bench and the cold glass front as a side or backrest. However, the question of additional costs comes up, so I would only do this if I really want to use it that way and not just as a nice gimmick.
Considering the otherwise generously sized rooms (e.g., children’s rooms), I find it somewhat unbalanced if the open-plan living space is tight somewhere, since 55sqm (592 sqft) of open space is adequate but not luxurious (unlike the children’s rooms, for example). Then I would also want to design my beloved sauna really comfortably and not be short by 20cm (8 inches). People and their preferences change over time; who knows who might join in the sauna someday, and I would like to be able to lie down there as well, so 200cm (79 inches).

Ben3001 schrieb:

Whether this is trendy or outdated is not a deciding factor for us. Combined with a bookshelf wall, I find it visually quite appealing already. The idea was also to loosen up the long living room space a bit.

I think that’s good; apologies if I commented imprecisely. Often I see the “usual” window seat that people just have and misjudge the potential for use. I had already noticed beforehand that there seems to be more thought put into a truly deliberate use. Then it is obviously not a trend-driven decision but something with genuine individual benefit. I do hope you understand my general “concern” behind this that I wanted to point out.

Ben3001 schrieb:

For me, the question at this point is whether the goal can reasonably be achieved based on the current design or whether the 7,500€ invested in planning plus time should be written off and you start again with the current knowledge.

Of course, you can build it like this and you won’t necessarily be unhappy; compared to what is commonly built nowadays, you wouldn’t have to hide it. Still, the fundamental question remains whether to have a basement or not, and there are some other annoying details. Clearly, €7,500 may feel like money thrown away, but I wouldn’t see it that way; my concern would be that during construction I would realize it is not optimal. My goal is to build an ideal house and to enjoy every visible detail once construction starts. In our neighborhood, people often fix and cover up things later that could have been avoided with proper planning, and those €7,500 disappear very quickly. For example, we paid €7,000 for the broker of the land and only after that saw that it could have been done directly. Gone just like that… well then.
I definitely wouldn’t try to “bend” the old floor plan but start from scratch with your new knowledge and without external constraints.
Create a really great floor plan within the legal building permit / planning permission possibilities, and then the right exterior, roof style, and window design will also come together. Take the time on the way to the goal—it will save you a lot of money. Guess how quickly €8,000 can be wasted. Sliding doors, “usual window seats,” and similar often pointless gimmicks—this would be my advice.

Have them create a second draft. Architects know there are several ways to satisfy a client. There are many paths to Rome, and if one approach isn’t suitable, you can try the next one.

Arauki11 schrieb:

Of course, you can build it that way and you won’t necessarily be unhappy; compared to what is commonly built nowadays, you don’t have to be embarrassed about it. Still, the fundamental question remains: cellar or no cellar, along with other inconvenient details. Sure, spending €7,500 (about $8,200) might feel like wasted money, but I wouldn’t see it that way — rather, my assumption is that I would know during construction that it’s not ideal. My goal is to build an optimal house and to enjoy every visible detail when construction begins. In our neighborhood, people often fix and cover up issues later on that could have been avoided with proper planning, and that €7,500 (about $8,200) quickly disappears.

Seven and a half thousand euros as a kind of divine punishment for knowing my house-building schedule and still not following it is a lot of money on one hand; as a donation to the operator of the blog site where the schedule is posted, it would have been more useful. On the other hand, it’s also just peanuts compared to a cellar that the land doesn’t require.

Arauki11 schrieb:

I would definitely not try to “bend” the old floor plan, but start from scratch with your new knowledge, without any external constraints.

Really wasted money would be what you spend on decorating the “old” house design with floral wreaths afterward. Leaving remnants of previous house designs in the mixing bowl of the new concept would act like yogurt cultures: nostalgia with moldy spores would be the foundation for a failed harvest. The most important thing now, in the further planning process, seems to me to be to respect another resting period for the dough — that is, a strict fasting time, where you avoid the “meat,” meaning detailed floor plan drawings, and instead nourish yourself exclusively with conceptual work during planning.

ypg schrieb:

Just have them create a second design. Architects know several ways to satisfy a client. Many roads lead to Rome, and if one way doesn’t please you, maybe take the next.

Not that! Even a fourth attempt at a design can’t replace a preliminary draft. Trying to please clients is exactly the wrong approach and the root of the problem. Clients are impatient, restless, and complain until they get what they want. They are “satisfied” only when they are immediately thrown onto the fast lane from the driveway, and the architect is expected to throw a lump of clay onto the potter’s wheel and spit out the long-awaited tangible drawings right away. But that recipe guarantees a disaster. Just start scribbling randomly — dog, cat, car, house (like a quick-draw party game, older people will know what I mean) — a fun activity from before karaoke existed, but unfortunately the result is just construction plans dressed up, while in reality it’s like molten lead casting. Cheers, Miss Sophie!
No, I’m not talking about “the crawl,” even in the digital drawing age a gentle roasting preserves the flavor of planning. Without the indispensable stages of ripening — “preliminary draft,” which is not just an imperfect draft, and “dough resting” — no matter how many roads lead to “Rome,” you often end up in Lodz or one of many Neustadts instead.
What really benefits homeowners is a structured, conceptual approach: collect needs and wishes > create a room program > refine the room program > try out upstairs layouts with stair positioning > derive the ground floor > create a preliminary draft; then a resting period with decision-making and budget calibration, and only after that, create the design. Creating the design immediately, and if it (still) isn’t (completely) liked, just a next random try — that’s not designing, it’s guesswork; first prize: a basement and a hipped roof (with or without a dormer window, which is only a marginal note). Designing a house is a game for adults, but unfortunately not with play money.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/