ᐅ Single-family house with a recessed upper floor, southwest-facing, located in Bonn
Created on: 5 Oct 2020 20:40
B
Benrath
Hello everyone,
we have purchased one of three plots that were divided from a larger property and still need to be developed. Access is via a private road, and all three owners share the traffic area equally. The plot is very well connected for us, located centrally in Bonn, and is perhaps a bit larger than we actually needed. However, it’s not like there are always free plots available in a similar location.
Because there was a lengthy legal dispute between the seller and the neighbors beforehand, we can only build a partial recessed upper floor to a limited extent. Probably for this reason, the plot was mainly interesting for private buyers. An accessory apartment is not possible, and we don’t want one anyway.
Up until now, the planning was done from scratch without considering costs or practical aspects, at least from our side. The architect apparently enjoys drawing, which is understandable at this stage and has a certain artistic approach. We are generally open to all suggestions and ideas on what could be done differently, especially where costs might be saved easily.
Our next step will be to conclude an architect contract for service phases 1 to 5 plus general contractor / main contractor.
Development plan/restrictions
Plot size: >800sqm (8600 sq ft), no slope, building envelope etc. See plan.
Parking spaces: 1 on traffic area and 1 garage
Number of storeys: Only 1 full storey plus a recessed upper floor
Roof style: Flat roof; architectural style: rather Bauhaus
Orientation: Front of the house faces southwest
Maximum height/limits: 7–8m (23–26 ft)
Owners’ requirements
We basically have no specific style requirements. A flat roof results partly from the recessed upper floor and height restrictions, which probably don’t allow a pitched roof.
We want a basement with excavation and two daylight rooms (this was more the architect’s idea). Currently, there are three of us, possibly four in the future. Early 30s and a baby.
We had planned for just over 100sqm (1076 sq ft) on the ground floor and about 75% of that upstairs. Currently, it’s roughly 230sqm (2475 sq ft) ground floor and upper floor combined plus terraces, etc., and the basement.
Office: occasional use, not very important.
Number of overnight guests per year: unknown, but a guest room is planned
Open kitchen, kitchen island: We definitely want a separate kitchen area and like the suggestion of an extended island
Number of dining seats: 4 in the kitchen, more like 8 in the dining room
Fireplace: Not very important, probably no.
Music/surround sound system: 5.1 system around the TV
Balcony, roof terrace: Terrace is a must, balcony above the kitchen results from the recessed floor
Garage, carport: The garage width of 4.5m (15 ft) is unusual and probably makes it more expensive.
House design by the architect
What do we particularly like? Why? Good use of the sunny side, and otherwise all our wishes have been taken into account.
Upper floor: 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Master bedroom with en-suite bathroom and walk-in closet.
What don’t we like? Why? I could imagine a nicer staircase, perhaps a longer, more open design. Overall, the hallway feels a bit large.
The upper-floor terrace seems somewhat oversized. We are wondering if the overhang casts too much shade on the ground floor.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: with general contractor and all additional costs >900,000€ (over 900,000 euros)
Personal budget limit for the house, including fittings: rather below that.
Preferred heating technology: no opinion so far
Why does the design look like it does?
For example:
There was an initial meeting with the architect during which our wishes were noted.
Ground floor: separated kitchen, combined living/dining area. Another separate room as office/guest room (and possibly bedroom if needed).
Passage from the garage to the house, possibly as a utility room.
Upper floor: 3 rooms plus 2 bathrooms, including one en-suite.
First draft at the second meeting, and at the third meeting this final design was presented.
we have purchased one of three plots that were divided from a larger property and still need to be developed. Access is via a private road, and all three owners share the traffic area equally. The plot is very well connected for us, located centrally in Bonn, and is perhaps a bit larger than we actually needed. However, it’s not like there are always free plots available in a similar location.
Because there was a lengthy legal dispute between the seller and the neighbors beforehand, we can only build a partial recessed upper floor to a limited extent. Probably for this reason, the plot was mainly interesting for private buyers. An accessory apartment is not possible, and we don’t want one anyway.
Up until now, the planning was done from scratch without considering costs or practical aspects, at least from our side. The architect apparently enjoys drawing, which is understandable at this stage and has a certain artistic approach. We are generally open to all suggestions and ideas on what could be done differently, especially where costs might be saved easily.
Our next step will be to conclude an architect contract for service phases 1 to 5 plus general contractor / main contractor.
Development plan/restrictions
Plot size: >800sqm (8600 sq ft), no slope, building envelope etc. See plan.
Parking spaces: 1 on traffic area and 1 garage
Number of storeys: Only 1 full storey plus a recessed upper floor
Roof style: Flat roof; architectural style: rather Bauhaus
Orientation: Front of the house faces southwest
Maximum height/limits: 7–8m (23–26 ft)
Owners’ requirements
We basically have no specific style requirements. A flat roof results partly from the recessed upper floor and height restrictions, which probably don’t allow a pitched roof.
We want a basement with excavation and two daylight rooms (this was more the architect’s idea). Currently, there are three of us, possibly four in the future. Early 30s and a baby.
We had planned for just over 100sqm (1076 sq ft) on the ground floor and about 75% of that upstairs. Currently, it’s roughly 230sqm (2475 sq ft) ground floor and upper floor combined plus terraces, etc., and the basement.
Office: occasional use, not very important.
Number of overnight guests per year: unknown, but a guest room is planned
Open kitchen, kitchen island: We definitely want a separate kitchen area and like the suggestion of an extended island
Number of dining seats: 4 in the kitchen, more like 8 in the dining room
Fireplace: Not very important, probably no.
Music/surround sound system: 5.1 system around the TV
Balcony, roof terrace: Terrace is a must, balcony above the kitchen results from the recessed floor
Garage, carport: The garage width of 4.5m (15 ft) is unusual and probably makes it more expensive.
House design by the architect
What do we particularly like? Why? Good use of the sunny side, and otherwise all our wishes have been taken into account.
Upper floor: 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Master bedroom with en-suite bathroom and walk-in closet.
What don’t we like? Why? I could imagine a nicer staircase, perhaps a longer, more open design. Overall, the hallway feels a bit large.
The upper-floor terrace seems somewhat oversized. We are wondering if the overhang casts too much shade on the ground floor.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: with general contractor and all additional costs >900,000€ (over 900,000 euros)
Personal budget limit for the house, including fittings: rather below that.
Preferred heating technology: no opinion so far
Why does the design look like it does?
For example:
There was an initial meeting with the architect during which our wishes were noted.
Ground floor: separated kitchen, combined living/dining area. Another separate room as office/guest room (and possibly bedroom if needed).
Passage from the garage to the house, possibly as a utility room.
Upper floor: 3 rooms plus 2 bathrooms, including one en-suite.
First draft at the second meeting, and at the third meeting this final design was presented.
M
Matthew031 Dec 2020 13:33Alessandro schrieb:
I honestly can’t understand all the criticism. The ground floor works perfectly, the open-plan living area with the large window front is very nice, and the kitchen is positioned just right.
I would have even kept the original angled door between the kitchen and the open living area because it provides a direct view of the dining table.
The walk-in closet/bathroom/bedroom layout isn’t exactly to my taste either and can certainly be optimized.
Otherwise, some would be absolutely thrilled to have a house like this. Isn’t a forum meant to explore different perspectives and discuss from various viewpoints? You’ve shared your opinion, which is good and fair. But you don’t need to discredit other opinions—they have the same validity as yours. Especially since many comments were supported with solid arguments, particularly from @pagoni2020 in great detail. That is more useful than just “I like it/don’t like it.”
Your last sentence is dismissive, which is unfortunate to see.
And “working” is one thing, but that wasn’t really the main point in this context.
A
Alessandro1 Dec 2020 13:49Yes, I completely agree @Matthew03, and I have absolutely nothing against other people’s opinions. However, some—usually the same ones—keep projecting their own views onto others, even though the others follow a completely different approach. We probably have different understandings of derogatory remarks, as I don’t see any in my last sentence.
Sorry, Alessandro. Long corridors aren’t really attractive either; they tried to make the best of it, and there are certainly some good options.
But that is about making the best use of existing structures and renovating them.
Here, however, it’s a new build. I wouldn’t build something that I then have to desperately improve later because it’s just not working in the first place. I’d build the perfect design – nothing less. Especially with such a budget.
I don’t think the style is bad either, but there are too many awkward corners, and I keep reading things like: well, I can just arrange the furniture so it fits, it’s not that important right now – oh yes, and I forgot: a baby grand piano still needs to go in, yay!
Well, a piano needs space, even if it’s not used often. With the current furniture layout, I don’t see where it would fit.
Then there’s a huge dining table, which I like and we have one too – but it doesn’t seem to fit with the statement that most meals will be eaten in the kitchen. So here we have a massive table that will rarely be used and a piano awkwardly squeezed into a corner, with the table angled to make it fit – and that’s supposed to be good? Sorry, I can’t agree.
To me, a lot doesn’t come together here. Apart from the fact that I don’t consider the architect to be a highlight of their profession (though maybe I’m wrong and they simply weren’t given creative freedom, which produces this result). Overall, I get the impression that the original poster saw some ideas, liked many things, and formed a vision. That’s not a bad start.
What’s seriously missing, though, is bringing those ideas and wishes to life. Sitting down and figuring out exactly how much space a piano requires, how much room a chair at the dining table takes, and so on. I didn’t know either – but Google is a great resource. I went around show homes just to see if the dimensions worked for my living room or felt too tight. How much clearance behind a chair at the dining table feels comfortable, and when does it start to feel cramped? That’s a personal feeling too (I found many dining tables in show homes squeezed in; I wanted more space!).
That’s what’s missing here. A casual “well, the furniture can be adjusted later” says a lot. I just can’t accept that.
But that is about making the best use of existing structures and renovating them.
Here, however, it’s a new build. I wouldn’t build something that I then have to desperately improve later because it’s just not working in the first place. I’d build the perfect design – nothing less. Especially with such a budget.
I don’t think the style is bad either, but there are too many awkward corners, and I keep reading things like: well, I can just arrange the furniture so it fits, it’s not that important right now – oh yes, and I forgot: a baby grand piano still needs to go in, yay!
Well, a piano needs space, even if it’s not used often. With the current furniture layout, I don’t see where it would fit.
Then there’s a huge dining table, which I like and we have one too – but it doesn’t seem to fit with the statement that most meals will be eaten in the kitchen. So here we have a massive table that will rarely be used and a piano awkwardly squeezed into a corner, with the table angled to make it fit – and that’s supposed to be good? Sorry, I can’t agree.
To me, a lot doesn’t come together here. Apart from the fact that I don’t consider the architect to be a highlight of their profession (though maybe I’m wrong and they simply weren’t given creative freedom, which produces this result). Overall, I get the impression that the original poster saw some ideas, liked many things, and formed a vision. That’s not a bad start.
What’s seriously missing, though, is bringing those ideas and wishes to life. Sitting down and figuring out exactly how much space a piano requires, how much room a chair at the dining table takes, and so on. I didn’t know either – but Google is a great resource. I went around show homes just to see if the dimensions worked for my living room or felt too tight. How much clearance behind a chair at the dining table feels comfortable, and when does it start to feel cramped? That’s a personal feeling too (I found many dining tables in show homes squeezed in; I wanted more space!).
That’s what’s missing here. A casual “well, the furniture can be adjusted later” says a lot. I just can’t accept that.
Alessandro schrieb:
Here are people with very different tastes when it comes to architecture and interior design. You would criticize their houses just as much as they do yours! If someone essentially says that a significant amount of extra square meters is simply an unavoidable consequence of the full-floor definition that applies in their case, then that is a misunderstanding. It’s a matter of taste when, like @rick2018, someone “asphalts” their living spaces ;-) and puts a yellow TV console in there (while having very thoroughly considered the planning aspects).
Benrath schrieb:
For example, I still consider the issue with the sections a red herring and pseudo-argument that has never been substantiated. The software can place them arbitrarily. Section lines are placed—whether manually or suggested by CAD software—firstly preferably at meaningful positions and secondly, as a consequence of the first, only as often as necessary. I did explain that, due to a significantly above-average number of sections, one can derive (as is confirmed upon closer inspection here) an indication of increased complexity of the building’s structure. Section “16” could of course have been named “R2D2” or “Carl Maria”; there is no DIN EN 11ant for that—but having six sections instead of two makes every cost-conscious plan reviewer’s alarm bells ring.
Benrath schrieb:
Thanks for a positive point. The conciliatory words from @Alessandro also made me very happy for you, especially since you obviously felt that the criticism was intended as a personal attack, which seems to have clouded your perception of the content of the critique (otherwise it’s hard to explain why you say that the explanations given multiple times, by different people, each phrased differently, were left without justification). If it were actual bashing, no one would put so much effort into explaining their criticism in a nuanced way. No one here begrudges anyone building a light version of “Fallingwater” near Bonn. But if the difference between critics and haters is not recognized by the “recipient,” the willingness to make this effort will soon fade.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
A
Alessandro1 Dec 2020 14:26@Climbee I don’t see anything here that has been desperately beautified, especially not on the ground floor. It’s open and works great!
And I, for example, really like long hallways, even in new builds.
To make the hallway on the ground floor feel less closed off, you can also install a window to the dining area or simply create an opening:
I won’t comment on the wing now—I’m with you there. However, if it really played such an important role, the architect would surely have been informed. I don’t think the floor plan revolves around the wing, even if it is a family heirloom. It would probably also look good positioned in the upper right corner of the living room.
And I, for example, really like long hallways, even in new builds.
To make the hallway on the ground floor feel less closed off, you can also install a window to the dining area or simply create an opening:
I won’t comment on the wing now—I’m with you there. However, if it really played such an important role, the architect would surely have been informed. I don’t think the floor plan revolves around the wing, even if it is a family heirloom. It would probably also look good positioned in the upper right corner of the living room.
A
Alessandro1 Dec 2020 14:38To create more space in the entrance area, I would omit the recessed wall and instead extend the roof from the garage to the entrance:
Similar topics