ᐅ Semi-detached house with unequal halves = different floor plans
Created on: 6 Nov 2018 21:56
M
MadameP
Preface: The larger half on the north side (right on the plan) is intended for personal use. The smaller "half" on the south side (left on the plan) is for sale. For the sales half, the only requirement was a practical use of space for 3, max. 4 people. Therefore, I will go into more detail regarding the personal half.
Since this is not obvious from the floor plan excerpts: the personal half is 8.75 m (29 feet) wide and 9 m (30 feet) deep, the sales half is 6.10 m (20 feet) wide and 9.65 m (32 feet) deep (external dimensions).
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 479 sqm (5155 sq ft), 23 m (75 ft) wide, 20.80 m (68 ft) deep
Slope: sloping southwest, approx. 3 m (10 ft) across the northeast-southwest diagonal
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.7
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 3 m (10 ft) setback line, no specific building envelope
Adjacent buildings: neighbors’ garage on the south boundary
Parking spaces: 2 per dwelling unit
Number of floors: 2 full floors
Roof type: pitched roof 25-45 degrees, exposed rafters, half-hipped roof, vented ridge
Maximum heights / limits: max. ridge height 9.50 m (31 ft)
Additional requirements: none
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: modern, clean lines, simple building form, gable roof
Basement, floors: no basement, 2 full floors plus attic
Number of occupants, ages: 3 (2 adults + baby, no more expected); the second semi-detached unit should accommodate a family with up to 2 children
Space requirements on ground and upper floors for own half:
Ground floor: guest WC, wardrobe, large open living/dining area, open kitchen, utility/technical room
First floor: large children’s room, master bedroom, family bathroom, laundry room
Attic: studio (office / guest room / hobby room), shower room
Office: both family use and home office
Guests per year: approx. 20 nights, 1–4 people
Open or closed architecture:
Conservative or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: both
Number of seats at dining table: 8
Fireplace: undecided
Sound/music wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: no, parking spaces only
Kitchen garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routines and reasons why some things should be included or excluded: For the personal half, there was a requirement for a half-landing staircase that is not accessible from the living area. A design away from the “classic semi-detached house standard” was desired, including externally. No “entrance corridor”.
House Design
Designed by: architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
Personal half:
- Split level to the living area, creating high ceilings in the open living space and making use of the topography
- large wardrobe/coat area
- storage space utilized under the staircase
- utility room on the first floor
- large children’s room (intended to be swapped with the attic studio when the child is older)
Sales half:
- ?
What do you dislike? Why?
Personal half:
- Utility room only accessible from outside (wtf?!)
- Open living space rather small
- Kitchen is small, no island, dining area only for 6 people
- Guest WC wastes space
- Overall few and small windows
- Family bathroom layout: shower exit directly in front of the door, toilet right next to the sink
- No dressing room
- Attic bathroom: again, shower exit directly in front of the door
- Attic studio windows: tiny arrow slit window facing west (the side with the really great view) and two roof windows. (my next wtf moment)
Sales half:
- No second shower bathroom
- First floor bathroom tiny, no shower
- Boring floor plan
- Second room in attic without a window?! (again a wtf moment)
Price estimate according to planner: just within budget (prefer not to discuss figures publicly due to sales plans, thanks for understanding)
Preferred heating system: ideally geothermal, if still within budget
If you have to give up something, which details/extras
- can you do without: geothermal heating, attic bathroom (would at first only install plumbing, finish later)
- can you not do without: half-landing staircase
Why is the design as it currently is?
Our requirements regarding the space program were largely implemented.
Which requests did the architect fulfill?
Offset in height and depth between the two halves, staircase not opening off the living room, utility room on the first floor
What do you consider especially good or bad?
The arrangement, location and size of the windows raise major questions for me.
Furthermore, I don’t understand why the plot width isn’t fully used. We are fine with 3.50 m (11.5 ft) on the sides for parking. For the sales half, we’d leave 3 m (10 ft) to preserve garden space at the back. The very first study was even more “tube-shaped,” and we already pointed that out. Now the northern half still has 4.12 m (13.5 ft) and the southern 3.93 m (13 ft) width on the sides. Why?? Dead space next to the cars that we won’t use, instead of garden space facing west.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
What can we do better?
Since this is not obvious from the floor plan excerpts: the personal half is 8.75 m (29 feet) wide and 9 m (30 feet) deep, the sales half is 6.10 m (20 feet) wide and 9.65 m (32 feet) deep (external dimensions).
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 479 sqm (5155 sq ft), 23 m (75 ft) wide, 20.80 m (68 ft) deep
Slope: sloping southwest, approx. 3 m (10 ft) across the northeast-southwest diagonal
Site coverage ratio: 0.35
Floor area ratio: 0.7
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 3 m (10 ft) setback line, no specific building envelope
Adjacent buildings: neighbors’ garage on the south boundary
Parking spaces: 2 per dwelling unit
Number of floors: 2 full floors
Roof type: pitched roof 25-45 degrees, exposed rafters, half-hipped roof, vented ridge
Maximum heights / limits: max. ridge height 9.50 m (31 ft)
Additional requirements: none
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: modern, clean lines, simple building form, gable roof
Basement, floors: no basement, 2 full floors plus attic
Number of occupants, ages: 3 (2 adults + baby, no more expected); the second semi-detached unit should accommodate a family with up to 2 children
Space requirements on ground and upper floors for own half:
Ground floor: guest WC, wardrobe, large open living/dining area, open kitchen, utility/technical room
First floor: large children’s room, master bedroom, family bathroom, laundry room
Attic: studio (office / guest room / hobby room), shower room
Office: both family use and home office
Guests per year: approx. 20 nights, 1–4 people
Open or closed architecture:
Conservative or modern design: modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: both
Number of seats at dining table: 8
Fireplace: undecided
Sound/music wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: no, parking spaces only
Kitchen garden, greenhouse: no
Other wishes / special features / daily routines and reasons why some things should be included or excluded: For the personal half, there was a requirement for a half-landing staircase that is not accessible from the living area. A design away from the “classic semi-detached house standard” was desired, including externally. No “entrance corridor”.
House Design
Designed by: architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
Personal half:
- Split level to the living area, creating high ceilings in the open living space and making use of the topography
- large wardrobe/coat area
- storage space utilized under the staircase
- utility room on the first floor
- large children’s room (intended to be swapped with the attic studio when the child is older)
Sales half:
- ?
What do you dislike? Why?
Personal half:
- Utility room only accessible from outside (wtf?!)
- Open living space rather small
- Kitchen is small, no island, dining area only for 6 people
- Guest WC wastes space
- Overall few and small windows
- Family bathroom layout: shower exit directly in front of the door, toilet right next to the sink
- No dressing room
- Attic bathroom: again, shower exit directly in front of the door
- Attic studio windows: tiny arrow slit window facing west (the side with the really great view) and two roof windows. (my next wtf moment)
Sales half:
- No second shower bathroom
- First floor bathroom tiny, no shower
- Boring floor plan
- Second room in attic without a window?! (again a wtf moment)
Price estimate according to planner: just within budget (prefer not to discuss figures publicly due to sales plans, thanks for understanding)
Preferred heating system: ideally geothermal, if still within budget
If you have to give up something, which details/extras
- can you do without: geothermal heating, attic bathroom (would at first only install plumbing, finish later)
- can you not do without: half-landing staircase
Why is the design as it currently is?
Our requirements regarding the space program were largely implemented.
Which requests did the architect fulfill?
Offset in height and depth between the two halves, staircase not opening off the living room, utility room on the first floor
What do you consider especially good or bad?
The arrangement, location and size of the windows raise major questions for me.
Furthermore, I don’t understand why the plot width isn’t fully used. We are fine with 3.50 m (11.5 ft) on the sides for parking. For the sales half, we’d leave 3 m (10 ft) to preserve garden space at the back. The very first study was even more “tube-shaped,” and we already pointed that out. Now the northern half still has 4.12 m (13.5 ft) and the southern 3.93 m (13 ft) width on the sides. Why?? Dead space next to the cars that we won’t use, instead of garden space facing west.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
What can we do better?
MadameP schrieb:
The design isn’t quite what we want yet, but it’s moving in the direction we developed with the architect. Well, that’s good then. I wasn’t sure if it really was as Yvonne suspected. After all, the initial requests were somewhat different.
In the meantime, another architect was highly recommended to us by distant acquaintances who built in our area years ago. They have now sold that house because they acquired an even better plot (small village/connections, of course) and will be building again next year with the same architect and his construction company because they were so happy with the house and its execution.
We met with this architect at the plot and discussed the project. I have to say, he was the first to really think about the project strictly based on the plot itself, rather than just how to fit the building onto it. We spent a long time together creating a room schedule; ideas flowed freely, and we are now awaiting his (almost a counter-) draft. The idea of two building volumes with separate gable roofs without eaves, positioned at a 90-degree angle, was on the table. (At this point, 11ant probably gave up for good...) I still can’t quite picture it, but nothing is set in stone yet, and I just need to see it. Assuming we were to build with him, it would, of course, be frustrating to have spent so much money on the other concept study. On the other hand, it gives us another option. I’m curious to see what comes of it.
We met with this architect at the plot and discussed the project. I have to say, he was the first to really think about the project strictly based on the plot itself, rather than just how to fit the building onto it. We spent a long time together creating a room schedule; ideas flowed freely, and we are now awaiting his (almost a counter-) draft. The idea of two building volumes with separate gable roofs without eaves, positioned at a 90-degree angle, was on the table. (At this point, 11ant probably gave up for good...) I still can’t quite picture it, but nothing is set in stone yet, and I just need to see it. Assuming we were to build with him, it would, of course, be frustrating to have spent so much money on the other concept study. On the other hand, it gives us another option. I’m curious to see what comes of it.
MadameP schrieb:
To what extent would a different roof design affect the floor plan if the building footprint remains roughly the same with two full stories? Wouldn’t it only have consequences for the attic space, or is there a flaw in my thinking? It would change a lot less than everything: a different roof means different height lines in the attic = a) different headroom over the stairs = different stair position and b) differently distributed standing height in the attic = a different layout, and as a consequence, the footprint remaining the same is also brought into question.
MadameP schrieb:
But if the offset is basically pointless – then why not in our case? If the shed roof halves belong to two separate buildings, in my opinion, the building articulation outweighs any possible additional daylight.
MadameP schrieb:
Same pitch, same eave height doesn’t work with the maximum ridge height. We tested it! It would rather work with shed roofs that meet in a large gable roof at the party wall. I consider that an indicator of an awkwardly chosen difference in house widths and/or roof pitch.
I don’t recall: did you ever follow up on my suggestion of a slanted party wall?
MadameP schrieb:
The workspace is accommodated in the "studio," which will serve as a home office, guest room, and hobby room. A "studio" is just a euphemism for leftover floor space, similar to "hobby room" in the basement. Its use is correspondingly a multifunctional chameleon stew. From my perspective, these are architecturally compromised rooms built as a sales gimmick. These are spaces that justify the real estate agent’s phrase “anything is possible.” The main difference usually is that in the studio the clutter is more intellectual (never or long-unread books), while the basement stores more party supplies.
MadameP schrieb:
There was the idea of two building volumes with separate gable roofs without eaves, positioned at a 90-degree angle. So the ridge direction of the second building half is perpendicular to the first?
MadameP schrieb:
(At this point, 11ant probably definitely checked out...) MadameP schrieb:
(At this point, I hear 11ant laughing over the roofs.) ? ? ?
MadameP schrieb:
We don’t need much space for sleeping, I find small and cozy much more comfortable anyway. It’s not just about sleeping space (area), but also about room volume. You don’t want to sleep tired. That means the room needs either appropriate air exchange rates or enough volume so that the used air doesn’t get "concentrated." I would be reluctant to install an additional controlled residential ventilation system with turbo air exchange rate just because I planned the room too small.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
So, the ridge direction of the second half of the house is perpendicular to the first? P.S.: Taking a look at the house of @KingSong along with the mother-in-law wing in the house pictures thread might provide a fresh perspective regarding the building composition.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics