Dream house floor plan - 173m² with 3 children's rooms

The comparison with barking dogs is, when viewed ambiguously, quite aptly chosen. Creating concern through exaggeratedly critical remarks was my intention; however, being offensive or condescending was not. I recognize the difference between a professionally created psychogram and a private assessment of a situation at the latest when reading my own diagnosis; any potential overestimations of myself life has taught me to unlearn on its own. I cannot take away your fear of "being lectured" by an alleged great master; this does not arise solely because of me but was already made clear in your opening post. The line between acceptance of meaningful constructive criticism and condescending perceived lecturing seems to be very thin here. Apparently not only for me remains the question with what expectation your project was introduced in this critical construction forum and additionally referred to the private website; with the stipulation not to accept any contribution no matter how sensible that might disturb you while eating popcorn. Everyone perceives this in their own individual way; I have communicated mine to you. In doing so, one offends those people who move about in this forum to participate openly, constructively, and committedly in others’ projects or problems and want to meaningfully contribute their different knowledge, their imagination, or other efforts, precisely in order to help others or to point out possible, understandable errors in reasoning (you unfortunately call it "a board in front of the head"). To practically exclude this from the outset and to refer to the private website is not forbidden, but it diminishes the value of the effort shown and particularly suggests that one only wants to display something here that one perceives as successful oneself. In my opinion, however, this contradicts the actual purpose of this forum. This forum is meant to be exactly the inspiration for something new, different, and even unconsidered, which you want to pass on to others here with your project. Here, you are allowed to be a "taker" and, in the best case, even want to learn and should not want to be the "giver"; in this position you are not, which in itself is not bad.

What bothers me, however, is that even platitudes like "aesthetics, sense of space, and use of space are subjective" are sometimes contradicted here. Behind that, there is also a certain mindset.

Actually, I did learn that. Although at high school, design theory was mostly discussed, I was trained in why – to put it simply – the golden ratio exists and what it achieves. During my apprenticeship, which probably predates the planning of your existence in terms of time, it was about spatial theory, optics, and such "stuff"; there they not only discussed but were even tested. But you don’t necessarily have to learn it; there are also people whose sense of harmony lies in their blood and gut. Some find themselves here in the forum and are probably able to distinguish harmony, tension, and incompatibilities for these very reasons. Furthermore, in terms of house design planning, they can already contribute with over half their lifetime experience, for whatever reasons. Be it a related profession or "blood and gut." However, of course, these teachings are also subject to changing times. So you have to rediscover yourself and new styles repeatedly and additionally respond to foreign needs when it comes to customer wishes. And then there are those who google and find something like "Grundrissshow." Until yesterday, I didn’t even know about it. It’s nice that such a thing exists. I will take a closer look at it over the weekend. However, it also feels strange to me when someone presents themselves as a newcomer in a group or forum as if they had just reinvented the wheel and now have exactly the one solution and want to share some knowledge with the “experienced.” I’m not saying that the experienced cannot learn anything anymore. As I said above: you always have to keep up with changing times, although basics like the golden ratio are always valid. What is being further discussed here is the kitchen. If it’s about a glamorous, eccentric, or simply special house of today, you might possibly plan sight lines that play with what comes into the house, so that you can sense there’s a great center of life or even "grasp" it. And why is this actually so magical? Because in every historical epoch it was that way that people wanted to be where the fire blazed and the soup simmered. Either there was only that one room, or further rooms were built, but those were supposed to provide peace and were therefore placed further to the back. Cave, hut, house... always the same. Only where money, lots of money, was available and ruled, was it handled differently. But one thing has stayed the same: by the fire and soup there was most fun, dancing, and lots of joy due to the possible lively gathering. Nowadays we have more options in house building or allow ourselves more, and the importance of the house is also different. In this respect, it’s about the communicative cooking experience. Drinking wine at the counter is a lived style, and lifestyle is shown repeatedly on TV at the stove.

I would fundamentally and basically disagree with that. Even practical aspects can look different for everyone. Just think of the kitchen and who does what, when, and how much there.

This was still about aesthetics and sense of space. Others criticized it exactly because they took your personality into account. Five people, three children. That may then also be reflected in the kitchen or its condition and may not be exactly what one wants to see when entering. That’s how I understood it. I, on the other hand, have a completely different point of view. In my eyes, a kitchen with five people can also reflect life. For me, additionally, the U in combination with the door is the bottleneck: if three or more people (whether man, woman, child, or guest) are busy in the kitchen, there is only one way out – namely around the island, half out the door, to then arrive half back in the kitchen in front of the island. That might work with one or two people, but from three it becomes complicated.

This forum is supposed to be exactly the inspiration for something new, different, and even unconsidered that you want to pass on to others here with your project Derinrm.
You should be a "taker" here and at best even want to learn, and you should not want to be the "giver," you are not in this position, which in itself is not bad.

Unfortunately, the last part of my post was censored, so the gloss is no longer quite complete. Never mind. I don’t understand why the discussion can’t simply be the goal. No one here has to be convinced of anything.

Well, I actually learned that. Although at the gymnasium the design theory was more discussed, I was trained in why there is— to put it simply—the golden ratio and what it does.

You are absolutely right, and you yourself describe how these basic principles have repeatedly appeared in history in different facets—depending on skill, need, and of course also budget.

However, it is just as strange to me when someone presents themselves in a group or forum as a newcomer as if they have reinvented the wheel and have exactly the one solution and want to share some of their knowledge with the "experienced."

Where have I done that again? Your posts would be so much better if you could simply leave out these arbitrary claims. Otherwise, please quote me—maybe my memory is that bad. Then I apologize in advance. My ego does not need to be stroked; with three kids I have other worries.

For me, the U combined with the door is the bottleneck: if 3 or more people (whether man, woman, child, or guest) are working in the kitchen, there is only one way out—namely around the island, half out the door, to half get back into the kitchen in front of the island. That might still work with one or two people, but from three on it gets complicated.

Three people in the kitchen would personally already be too many for me. From three people on, from my (not very extensive) experience, you only get in each other’s way. Better to have the others sit at the dining table to chop something (which would also work on our U on the other side of the counter, by the way).

My experience so far with our build is the less demands/own creations/special requests you have overall, the less stress you also have, because then just some standard floor plan from XYZ prefab house company is simply enough. Well, that’s not how people tick— I’m unfortunately no different :-D . Nobody wants off-the-rack, everyone wants individual and to realize themselves.

That is a nice admission and somehow typically German: If you are already putting so much money down, it has to be perfect. Too bad that perfection doesn’t exist. At some point it’s just built, and then you have to live with it—and in most cases (surely in our house too) you can do that very well. Whoever always looks for a flaw will never be happy. But I can understand you very well. I am similarly inclined and also constantly have to fight against my nature.

For comments, I’ll initially give others the floor – maybe someone else would like to express their hunches about the content of my rant (especially bets on what I will start with). In that spirit: see you in a week (whether Dieter Meier will be here then or not)!

Well then, even if it took a bit longer during the year-end business: here comes my promised rant. As expected, I begin with the fantasy dimensions that lead to botched jobs in masonry construction. Concluding from this that they would be irrelevant in a wooden construction is unfortunately far from correct. Their relevance is effectively the same, although the criticality is somewhat lower. Even in the production of wooden frame panels, there are rhythms for the spacing of the studs (625 mm, less often 833, occasionally others). The stride length is different here than in masonry (there reasonably 750), but it’s about the principle, so the specific rhythm measure of the manufacturer is irrelevant here and accordingly does not carry weight. In any case, it is fixed in production and also in the basic static concept of the construction system of every house manufacturer, and the insertion of fantasy dimension steps inevitably leads to the necessity of replacements. I will list the most obvious examples of concrete dimensions:

The wall section length 1.19 on the front facade left is met by 1.21 m at the back next to the lift-and-slide door; around the corner it is then 1.32 and similarly in the upper floor with 1.41 m at the garden facade left and right, but parallel in the bathroom 1.39 m and on the children’s side 1.57 and 1.425 m. From a watchmaker’s perspective, skewed are 1.39 m on the front facade to the right at the bathroom and below 1.46 m. The window widths are moderately coordinated so as not to produce too much of a diverse menagerie. A 2 cm difference between 1.19 and 1.21 or the quartet 1.39 / 1.41 / 1.425 / 1.46 m are signs of insufficient attention by the architect to the construction system (or even disinterest), which I would not have expected here. The trickiest I assess here is the 4.5 cm reveal projection (41 vs. 36.5 cm) at the living room window door. In my eyes, these are all signs of sloppiness (yes, I know the youth calls this chillness, but that doesn’t make it better). Regarding the stairs, I miss at the start, landing and exit each the offset by the virtual depth of the last rise (tripping hazard because it requires light and/or concentration, avoidance would be simple and in my opinion the mistake "saves" only one tread depth in the required space of the stair system).

I consider requesting eight providers at once already wasteful and a range from 2.9 to 4.2 k /sqm as an initial suspicion of too coarse foundations. And both of these mind you with the restriction to just one construction method (?)

I share the skepticism regarding the double-wing living room door; regarding the balcony, I myself am a linen dryer. Bicycles (and all the more so trash bins) are not placeholders, but should absolutely not already be poorly practical in the plan. I would never, regardless of the construction method, take a slab out of the shell construction package, consequently also not with a general contractor. I agree with the suggestion of for a terrain-adapted garage elevated relative to the house. The heights would then have to be adjusted so that the passage door in the house is floor-to-ceiling, the window above the drain might possibly have to be shifted, here the wall section of 41 cm "width" might be sewn too tightly edgewise. Perhaps details like these illustrate my extreme reservations about plans without accompanying architects on site. Regarding the garage, I will mention my namesake here (not related and not in-laws). Besides, my likes to the posts of fellow discussants are part of my rant, so I regularly do not explicitly repeat most of the statements I consider accurate, and the “list” of my mentions of other comments does not claim completeness.

While reading your post, I inevitably thought of our two neighbor dogs. You go for a walk unsuspectingly, and suddenly they come barking around the corner and mark the big Max. Sure, nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. You just go on your way and let yourself be barked at. The two golden treasures have learned: If people keep walking, I have asserted myself. I am right.

The two golden treasures can also learn that no firearms license is required for water pistols of any caliber, and for dog whistles as far as I know, likewise none. Then it will be clear again who’s the boss.

And that even though we did not have the salesman of the construction company plan, as recommended millions of times, but engaged an architect, only planned up to the draft stage, had several construction companies submit offers based on the draft, then had the chosen construction company execute the work. It still turned out to be somewhat half-baked, which had to be retuned in many places.

The "half-baked" is avoidable, and I regret if I might have been misunderstood on this point: in choosing the path, selecting a general contractor (GU) in my opinion too early, commissioning the architect only after the decision with service phase 3 instead of the entire module B solely serves to avoid double execution of service phase 4. Not without reason do I always preach the motto "3 + 5 = 8."

Have you requested offers from regional companies? We have offers in the range of 60k to 70k for 144 sqm floor area + 17k for 56 sqm (garage), a total of 85k, + 4k drainage pipes, + 3k drainage + 2k inspection shaft + 6k insulation KfW40 + 2k gravel for driveway and terrace = approx. 100k, that seems very high to me at the moment, soil survey report unfortunately still pending, maybe that will have a bigger (hopefully positive) effect.

Absurdly expensive. This spring I paid about 25k gross for a similar size base slab (25 cm). Including drainage, grounding, installing multi-utility conduits, clean layer, and 10 cm perimeter insulation.
Earthworks and supplying and compacting gravel were done as own work.
36 sqm trowel-smoothed base slab (20 cm) for the garage cost 3000 gross.

Hello 11ant,

nice that you have written something as well. We will definitely take the measurements you mentioned into account in our further planning phase. From service phase 4 onwards, the architect of the house building company will take over. Hopefully, he knows what he is doing.

I find it wasteful to request eight providers in one step and a range from 2.9 to 4.2 k /sqm as an initial suspicion of too rough foundations. And both this is, mind you, when limited to only one construction method (?)

We have heard this literally from other experts as well. Honestly: Three offers got kicked out immediately with us. I wouldn’t have thought that the range for our house lies somewhere between 3k and 4.5k per square meter. Our calculation maybe still works half-way up to 3.5k per square meter.
For now, we have distilled our comparison to three providers and will soon go into preliminary sampling with them. It was/is stressful though.

I share the skepticism regarding the double-wing living room door

By now, we have agreed 90% to leave the door out at first. I am still working on the remaining 10%. We are still undecided whether to do it with or without a lintel. Do you have a tip? In any case, we could later cleverly install a door there – with three pubescent treasures.

Bicycles (and all the more so garbage bins) are no placeholders but should definitely not be impractically planned from the start.

We also pondered back and forth about the garbage bins. They stand in the garage more or less as placeholders. At the moment, I see a three-bin box on the north side as the most sensible solution. So, here it is with the original dimensions for such boxes:

I agree with the proposal of for a garage stepped in height adjusted to the terrain relative to the house.

Thanks again to hanghaus at this point.

The two treasures can also learn that you don’t need a weapons license for water pistols of any caliber, and for dog whistles, as far as I know, no license either. Then it will be clear again who is the boss.

Luckily, in real life, no supervisor stands next to you and turns off the water pistol halfway.

[/QUOTE]That’s not without reason that I always preach the motto "3 + 5 = 8".[/QUOTE]
The first three we have fully. Thanks again for your hints.

By the way, here is another rendered picture of the cloakroom as we imagine it: