ᐅ Single-family home, approximately 160 m², Bauhaus style; first design draft based on our requirements
Created on: 23 Aug 2019 22:03
N
Notstrom
Hello everyone,
we've been looking forward to this for a long time, and now we can finally share our first draft floor plan/design for discussion. We’re very curious to hear your feedback.
Those of you who have seen my thread before (https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/efh-Bauhausstil-Wohnfläche-180m-mit-Doppelgarage.31853/) know what to expect, and here comes the gem.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 530m² (about 5,700 sq ft)
Slope: No
Site coverage ratio (Grundflächenzahl): see screenshot
Floor area ratio (Geschossflächenzahl): see screenshot
Building envelope, building line, and boundaries: see screenshot
Edge development: see screenshot
Number of parking spaces: double garage
Number of floors: 2
Roof style: flat roof
Architectural style: Bauhaus
Orientation
Maximum height/limitations
Other requirements
The green highlighted area represents our plot => Parcel 8479
Homeowner Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: Bauhaus style, flat roof
Basement, floors: Basement yes, ground floor, upper floor
Number of residents, ages: 3 people, potentially 4: 33, 30, 2 years old
Space requirements on ground and upper floors: Initially planned 180 m² (about 1,940 sq ft) on two stories, now reduced to 160 m² (about 1,720 sq ft) after feedback, with the ground floor slightly larger than the upper floor, around 75–85 m² (810–915 sq ft)
Office: Family use or home office? Yes, in the basement (guest room <-> office)
Overnight guests per year: Hard to say, probably about 10 times per year with 2–5 guests each time
Open or closed architecture: Rather open
Conservative or modern construction: Rather modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: Island
Number of dining spaces: 1
Fireplace: Yes
Music/sound system wall: Our soundbar is sufficient
Balcony, roof terrace: Maybe, undecided (Architect’s comment: How often do you really go out for a beer on the balcony/roof terrace instead of the nice terrace on the ground floor?)
Garage, carport: Double garage, possibly single garage with carport
Kitchen garden, greenhouse: Small but nice (a few tomatoes, cucumbers, zucchinis…)
House Design
Planning by: Architect
What do you particularly like? Why? We like the architecture with the two offset rectangles, though we wonder if the extra cost (no price estimate yet) justifies this. We believe it is structurally more challenging than a simple "cube."
What don’t you like? Why? The size of the bedroom/walk-in closet/children’s room. It feels like the bedroom is missing 2–5 m² (about 20–55 sq ft), as is the second children’s room.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: The initial draft was around 550,000 EUR
Personal price limit for the house, including fixtures: 620,000 EUR
Preferred heating technology: Indifferent, but tendency toward heat pump.
If you had to give up something, which details/finishes
- You can give up: the current shape (nice but a cube would also do)
- You cannot give up: space
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Standard design from the planner? This is the second design resulting from last week’s discussion with us, and we find it very successful.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? Absolutely, plus the idea he had to move the kitchen during development. The guest room has now moved to the basement, allowing more space on the ground floor (beforehand, it felt quite cramped and “squeezed”).
What makes it especially good or bad in your opinion? The architecture
...and now I’ll leave you alone with our house
Upper floor plan:
Basement:
we've been looking forward to this for a long time, and now we can finally share our first draft floor plan/design for discussion. We’re very curious to hear your feedback.
Those of you who have seen my thread before (https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/efh-Bauhausstil-Wohnfläche-180m-mit-Doppelgarage.31853/) know what to expect, and here comes the gem.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 530m² (about 5,700 sq ft)
Slope: No
Site coverage ratio (Grundflächenzahl): see screenshot
Floor area ratio (Geschossflächenzahl): see screenshot
Building envelope, building line, and boundaries: see screenshot
Edge development: see screenshot
Number of parking spaces: double garage
Number of floors: 2
Roof style: flat roof
Architectural style: Bauhaus
Orientation
Maximum height/limitations
Other requirements
The green highlighted area represents our plot => Parcel 8479
Homeowner Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: Bauhaus style, flat roof
Basement, floors: Basement yes, ground floor, upper floor
Number of residents, ages: 3 people, potentially 4: 33, 30, 2 years old
Space requirements on ground and upper floors: Initially planned 180 m² (about 1,940 sq ft) on two stories, now reduced to 160 m² (about 1,720 sq ft) after feedback, with the ground floor slightly larger than the upper floor, around 75–85 m² (810–915 sq ft)
Office: Family use or home office? Yes, in the basement (guest room <-> office)
Overnight guests per year: Hard to say, probably about 10 times per year with 2–5 guests each time
Open or closed architecture: Rather open
Conservative or modern construction: Rather modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: Island
Number of dining spaces: 1
Fireplace: Yes
Music/sound system wall: Our soundbar is sufficient
Balcony, roof terrace: Maybe, undecided (Architect’s comment: How often do you really go out for a beer on the balcony/roof terrace instead of the nice terrace on the ground floor?)
Garage, carport: Double garage, possibly single garage with carport
Kitchen garden, greenhouse: Small but nice (a few tomatoes, cucumbers, zucchinis…)
House Design
Planning by: Architect
What do you particularly like? Why? We like the architecture with the two offset rectangles, though we wonder if the extra cost (no price estimate yet) justifies this. We believe it is structurally more challenging than a simple "cube."
What don’t you like? Why? The size of the bedroom/walk-in closet/children’s room. It feels like the bedroom is missing 2–5 m² (about 20–55 sq ft), as is the second children’s room.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: The initial draft was around 550,000 EUR
Personal price limit for the house, including fixtures: 620,000 EUR
Preferred heating technology: Indifferent, but tendency toward heat pump.
If you had to give up something, which details/finishes
- You can give up: the current shape (nice but a cube would also do)
- You cannot give up: space
Why is the design the way it is now? For example:
Standard design from the planner? This is the second design resulting from last week’s discussion with us, and we find it very successful.
Which wishes were implemented by the architect? Absolutely, plus the idea he had to move the kitchen during development. The guest room has now moved to the basement, allowing more space on the ground floor (beforehand, it felt quite cramped and “squeezed”).
What makes it especially good or bad in your opinion? The architecture
...and now I’ll leave you alone with our house
Upper floor plan:
Basement:
Notstrom schrieb:
Here are the floor plans.Well, the issue with the 160 model in this layout is that you have a lot more space upstairs compared to downstairs. I quickly sketched this out:
The exterior dimensions are 11.35 x 9.7 meters (37.2 x 31.8 feet) – the 10 cm (4 inches) narrower width in the Rensch house is probably due to different wall thicknesses and the short staircase; I wouldn’t put much weight on that.
While downstairs is already somewhat tight, the rooms upstairs are quite spacious. Setting aside whether this is the optimal layout, the Rensch house also has an extra study upstairs, which you don’t need. You can’t really reduce the size upstairs if you want to keep the cube-like appearance that you like.
So, simply put, I don’t think the Rensch house fits your requirements.
kaho674 schrieb:
Well, the issue with the 160 arranged like this is that you have a lot more space upstairs compared to downstairs. I quickly sketched it out:
[ATTACH alt="würfel-EG.jpg"]37878[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="würfel-OG.jpg"]37877[/ATTACH]
External dimensions are 11.35 x 9.7 meters (37.2 x 31.8 feet) – the 10cm (4 inches) less width in the Rensch house is probably due to different wall thicknesses and a short staircase – I wouldn’t put much emphasis on that.
While it’s already quite tight downstairs, the rooms upstairs are spacious. Setting aside whether this is the optimal layout, the Rensch house also has an additional study upstairs, which you don’t need. You can’t really reduce the upstairs space if you want to keep the cube appearance that you like.
So, simply put, I don’t think the Rensch house matches your requirements. Hello kaho674,
Thank you very much for your feedback. To be honest, I don’t fully understand your sketches.
We are currently quite frustrated. It seems to me that we have an idea, but it doesn’t fit in many places.
Why do you think the plot does not meet our requirements?
Notstrom schrieb:
Why do you think the plot does not meet our requirements?The plot itself is fine.
Problem:
The floor plan from Rensch-Haus inevitably provides more space upstairs than you want. Even if you reduce it (as shown in the sketch), that will always be the case. The reason is the covered terrace.
Notstrom schrieb:
We are currently very frustrated. Don’t give up!
Notstrom schrieb:
It seems to me that we have an idea, but it doesn’t fit in many places. Which idea? Or do you mean the Rensch house?
kaho674 schrieb:
So the plot is fine.
Problem:
The floor plan from Rensch-Haus inevitably provides more space upstairs than you want. Even if you reduce it (as in the sketch), it will always remain that way. The reason is the covered terrace. Yes, but we actually wanted a (partially) covered terrace, so that doesn’t really conflict.
kaho674 schrieb:
Not at all!
What idea? Or are you referring to the Rensch-Haus? No, in general. I feel like I might be approaching this the wrong way. Sometimes it's the layout, other times the architecture, then the “cube.”
I’m really wondering if we should approach it differently—in other words: Is the sequence wrong, like a) floor plan, b) architecture => Bauhaus style, c) cube shape...
I think we really need to rethink this. In the end, we only have the style and a rough floor plan in mind; everything else is still flexible for us...
I have found that the best results are usually achieved when you first clearly define the requirements (rooms per floor, size, special features). Then arrange these rooms on the plot of land and finally adjust the exterior design. However, it is also possible to approach it differently by deciding upfront that the exterior must be a cube. In that case, it often happens that you end up with rooms you don’t need or something important is missing.
Similar topics