Zaba12
2019-09-06 13:36:02
- #1
I don’t now see what’s impossible about that. But keep in mind the original poster wants to live in the house with 5 people. For you it’s 3 people, net 100m², which would be, by rule of three for the original poster, 166m² net. You see, your house is not so impossible after all.I have an "impossible" house. Interior floor area 120m², from which walls, the HAR, and the stairwell above are deducted – leaving 100m² of usable space. Within this there is a living room, kitchen, three rooms, a WC, and a bathroom. The knee wall height is about 1.3m at the top, 45° gable roof, attic with standing height as storage space.
We are three people, and the whole thing is designed for that – my two daughters and me. The children's rooms are 14 and 12.5m², I have about 11m² myself. A "real" double bed with a width of 2m really does not fit in there, but I don't need that anyway. Bathroom 10m² and kitchen 14m², absolutely fine, the living room could certainly be bigger (22m²). There is the sofa-TV corner and a large table which is used daily for crafting, painting, puzzling, etc., and if the whole family drops in, we all eat there sometimes as well. The plot is small, but I don't want to do farming.
Compared to the previous three-room panel apartment of 70m², it is an immense progress! The children enjoy having their own rooms, I am happy that you can move freely in the kitchen, my room is only slightly larger but much more pleasantly laid out, and the bathroom is pure luxury compared to the previous internal wet cell of 1.6x1.7m². The only thing is the living room is roughly as it was before, only better equipped with windows (I would have liked it a bit more spacious though). But many here would certainly say that you can’t live like that because everything is far too cramped...