ᐅ Uncertainties regarding size, planning is otherwise mostly complete.
Created on: 28 Jan 2016 08:54
Z
Zwark
Good morning!
We are about to finalize the planning for our single-family house; we want to build 1.5 stories with a knee wall of 150 cm (59 inches), keeping it as compact as possible. So far, we have been very satisfied with the design from the planner of the construction company, but now that I’m working on the interior layout, the combined living-dining-kitchen area feels a bit cramped. We definitely want a seating corner in the dining area, but I’m afraid that might be difficult to fit (kitchen + seating area). Now I’m considering whether we should generally enlarge the house so everything fits comfortably (from 10.13 x 9 m (33.3 x 29.5 ft) to 11 x 9.5 m (36 x 31 ft)). Maybe someone here has some helpful tips?
The house has a basement, the clear room height in the living areas is 260 cm (102 inches), and a pitched roof with dormer and a 35° slope is planned. The plot is about 900 m² (9700 sq ft), with a 3-meter (10 ft) setback required from the neighbors. Two parking spaces (carport) at the front by the street are included in the plan. Thank you very much and best regards
We are about to finalize the planning for our single-family house; we want to build 1.5 stories with a knee wall of 150 cm (59 inches), keeping it as compact as possible. So far, we have been very satisfied with the design from the planner of the construction company, but now that I’m working on the interior layout, the combined living-dining-kitchen area feels a bit cramped. We definitely want a seating corner in the dining area, but I’m afraid that might be difficult to fit (kitchen + seating area). Now I’m considering whether we should generally enlarge the house so everything fits comfortably (from 10.13 x 9 m (33.3 x 29.5 ft) to 11 x 9.5 m (36 x 31 ft)). Maybe someone here has some helpful tips?
The house has a basement, the clear room height in the living areas is 260 cm (102 inches), and a pitched roof with dormer and a 35° slope is planned. The plot is about 900 m² (9700 sq ft), with a 3-meter (10 ft) setback required from the neighbors. Two parking spaces (carport) at the front by the street are included in the plan. Thank you very much and best regards
EveundGerd29 Jan 2016 19:14Pictures of your house definitely belong in the picture thread soon! Not curious at all.
On the topic: I think BeHaElJa’s solution is better than the original plan. However, you could also use a seating area as a room divider. There are very nice seating groups with straight, comfortable benches.
On the topic: I think BeHaElJa’s solution is better than the original plan. However, you could also use a seating area as a room divider. There are very nice seating groups with straight, comfortable benches.
BeHaElJa schrieb:
I’m not sure if I would have really preferred a two-story houseMy previous townhouse was two stories. We could have had a plot for a two-story building (in Bauhaus style) here in the new development, but I didn’t want that anymore: I missed the cozy feeling in the bedrooms due to the lack of sloped ceilings. Now we have a knee wall height of 125cm (49 inches)… 150 to 160cm (59 to 63 inches) would be perfect.
S
Sebastian7929 Jan 2016 20:50Grym schrieb:
The unusual dormer is probably more expensive than simply building up to full ceiling height all around, and double casement windows often look quite odd with today’s roof insulation thicknesses.Not everyone likes the popular "urban villas" – I would also prefer a house with a high knee wall but still having sloped ceilings. That can also be called cozy, but then you need to allow for some emotions.
And why do double casement windows look odd with today’s insulation thicknesses? Please explain – my two windows actually look quite serious.
By the way, it’s funny how you want to explain the construction world to someone like Bauexperte – upper hand?
Upstream water; yes, of course.
Double casement windows often look like arrow slits when they are usually so small and when roof thickness is often so substantial today. Just search for Roto panoramic roof windows—that’s the opposite. They look great and I think they cost five figures.
There’s nothing cozy about it. I once had a youth room under the roof with sloped ceilings everywhere. I’m glad to now have a ceiling height of 2.85m (9 ft 4 in). Recently, there was an architecture competition here, and one argument was that a ceiling height of 2.52m (8 ft 3 in) is no longer up to date. What today’s older buildings have as basement or attic conversions used to be “servants’ quarters.” No, the word is not derogatory; it really means that, see Wikipedia. Back then, nobody willingly lived under the roof if they didn’t have to.
A dormer with a window never provides as much light as a large room with full ceiling height and an equivalent window. And that’s not good for children’s rooms.
I’m definitely not the only one who says that if you can, you should please build without sloped ceilings. I’ve heard this several times already from house builders and others during conversations, as well as among friends and family. Most who have lived with sloped ceilings don’t want them again. It’s workable, but well… just workable.
Disclaimer: If everyone had the same opinion, we’d all just build the same kinds of houses. That’s not the case. I’ve just had some experience with sloped ceilings and am now, as mentioned, very happy with 2.85m (9 ft 4 in) ceiling height—even in the bedroom. By the way, I previously had a room open all the way up to the ridge; I think it was about 4 meters (13 ft). Still, 2.85m (9 ft 4 in) continuous height is nicer.
Double casement windows often look like arrow slits when they are usually so small and when roof thickness is often so substantial today. Just search for Roto panoramic roof windows—that’s the opposite. They look great and I think they cost five figures.
There’s nothing cozy about it. I once had a youth room under the roof with sloped ceilings everywhere. I’m glad to now have a ceiling height of 2.85m (9 ft 4 in). Recently, there was an architecture competition here, and one argument was that a ceiling height of 2.52m (8 ft 3 in) is no longer up to date. What today’s older buildings have as basement or attic conversions used to be “servants’ quarters.” No, the word is not derogatory; it really means that, see Wikipedia. Back then, nobody willingly lived under the roof if they didn’t have to.
A dormer with a window never provides as much light as a large room with full ceiling height and an equivalent window. And that’s not good for children’s rooms.
I’m definitely not the only one who says that if you can, you should please build without sloped ceilings. I’ve heard this several times already from house builders and others during conversations, as well as among friends and family. Most who have lived with sloped ceilings don’t want them again. It’s workable, but well… just workable.
Disclaimer: If everyone had the same opinion, we’d all just build the same kinds of houses. That’s not the case. I’ve just had some experience with sloped ceilings and am now, as mentioned, very happy with 2.85m (9 ft 4 in) ceiling height—even in the bedroom. By the way, I previously had a room open all the way up to the ridge; I think it was about 4 meters (13 ft). Still, 2.85m (9 ft 4 in) continuous height is nicer.
We have two rooms with skylights on the upper floor of the house – they are actually quite bright considering the window size. You can’t really see far into the distance, but other than that, I don’t see it as a big problem.
A friend has a historic attic apartment (15th century) that is absolutely fantastic. Very cozy, full of nooks and crannies; it definitely doesn’t feel like servant’s quarters anymore. Another acquaintance lives in a shared flat with a 4-meter (13 feet) continuous ceiling height… impressive, I suppose, but almost a bit eerie.
A friend has a historic attic apartment (15th century) that is absolutely fantastic. Very cozy, full of nooks and crannies; it definitely doesn’t feel like servant’s quarters anymore. Another acquaintance lives in a shared flat with a 4-meter (13 feet) continuous ceiling height… impressive, I suppose, but almost a bit eerie.
S
Sebastian7929 Jan 2016 21:41Loopholes? I wouldn’t say so, but there are also 114x140cm (45x55 inches) double casement windows, which give quite an airy feel.
We have a ceiling height of 2.50m (8.2 feet) upstairs – which is absolutely sufficient even for bedrooms. In your competition, they probably meant the living area on the ground floor – ceiling heights above 2.50m (8.2 feet) upstairs are rather unusual but certainly not bad. However, this also increases the heating demand, but you’ve probably already calculated that.
As I said, building a “town villa” is its own thing. Taste is, after all, a matter of personal preference.
We have a ceiling height of 2.50m (8.2 feet) upstairs – which is absolutely sufficient even for bedrooms. In your competition, they probably meant the living area on the ground floor – ceiling heights above 2.50m (8.2 feet) upstairs are rather unusual but certainly not bad. However, this also increases the heating demand, but you’ve probably already calculated that.
As I said, building a “town villa” is its own thing. Taste is, after all, a matter of personal preference.
Similar topics