Floor plan 170 sqm, gable roof, 1.5 floors

Hello dear forum,

we have purchased a plot of land with an old building (unfortunately in miserable condition) and want to build a single-family house after the demolition. In recent months, besides the demolition preparations, we have been dealing with plans for our new house, with which we want to approach various regional general contractors soon. We are very interested in your honest opinions on whether our planning is on the right track or rather off track.

In the planning, it is basically important to us to be able to live barrier-free on the ground floor in case of emergency. In terms of room layout, we want to open the house mainly to the large and visually protected garden. The garage of the demolition house is currently located in the west corner; we would like to place it in the northeast next to the existing neighbor’s garage.

The currently still existing house to be demolished has a full basement, whereby the basement floor on the driveway side is only about 1.50 m deep in the ground (due to sewer depth), and the ground floor is a 1.20 m high elevated ground floor. Accordingly, after the demolition, there is already an excavation pit, which could speak in favor of a building with a basement. However, for the new single-family house, we definitely want a barrier-free and thus ground-level entrance, which is why a basement would certainly require a deeper pit and due to the canal situation a lifting system. Filling the pit and especially the associated costs will still be discussed with the civil engineer in the next few weeks; there are no concrete figures yet. Possibly, we could recycle the demolition material directly with our civil engineer and use it for filling. Currently, we tend strongly to build without a basement, as we would like functions such as utility room and workshop to be on the ground level, and the many (also personal) experiences with damp or flooded basements deter us quite a bit.

Thank you very much for your feedback!
Hannes

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development plan/restrictions: old development plan from the 1960s with relatively few specifications. Only single-story buildings are allowed on the plot, but currently, for example, a house with ground floor + attic is on it, and there are numerous deviations in the neighborhood as well. In general, the municipality is quite open to deviations.
Plot size: 1100 sqm
Slope: approximately 45 cm drop along the house width, see site plan
Floor area ratio: /
Plot ratio: /
Building window, building line and boundary: no further southeast than neighboring development
Edge development: /
Number of parking spaces: /
Number of floors: according to development plan ground floor, but currently already built with ground floor + attic
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style: /
Orientation: /
Maximum heights/limitations: /
Other specifications: /

Owners’ requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type: classic design, 1.5 stories, gable roof (current planning 1 m knee wall, 38°), solid construction
Basement, floors: current tendency without basement, 1.5 floors
Number of people, age: currently 2x30 years, 2-3 children planned
Room requirements on ground floor, upper floor: ground floor: kitchen + dining, living room, “flexible room” (home office or barrier-free bedroom), shower bathroom, technical room; upper floor: bedroom with home office corner, 2 children’s rooms, bathroom, possibly storage room
Office: family use or home office?: 50% home office
Number of overnight guests per year: < 5
Open or closed architecture: rather closed
Conservative or modern design: rather conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island: preferably open with cooking island, but not mandatory
Number of dining seats: large table for 6–8 persons
Fireplace: rather not
Music/stereo wall: music yes, TV not a priority
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage + adjacent rooms for workshop and garden tools, carport possibly between garage and house
Utility garden, greenhouse: about 50 sqm utility garden would be perfect
Further wishes/special features/daily routine, also reasons why or why not for certain things:
- Living room as a retreat, e.g., for playing piano
- Large table in the dining room is a central place

House design
Who created the plan:
- Do-it-yourself
What do you like particularly? Why?: separated living room (as a retreat & for making music); barrier-reduced ground floor, living on one level possible in old age
What do you not like? Why?: no possibility for a fixed staircase to the attic if you want to convert it in the future; no pantry
Price estimate according to architect/planner: /
Personal price limit for the house including equipment: 750k including garage
Preferred heating technology: heat pump, if possible ground-source with surface collector

If you had to give up, on which details/extensions
- you can give up: /
- you cannot give up: possibility of barrier-free living on the ground floor

Why is the design like it is now?
- many iterations of own planning
- orientation kitchen/dining/living towards garden
- stairs close to the entrance (acoustic separation from living area, possibility to separate upper floor)
- would like to plan the garage on the northeast side, where the neighbor’s garage is already located
- floor plan is not yet optimized in the last detail, e.g., exact window orientation according to brick spacing, etc.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your eyes?
Good:
- nice view axis from the entrance to the garden
- living room as a separable retreat, but still connected to dining area
Bad:
- still not quite sure how to sensibly connect the roofing from the garage/carport to the house

You can't do without: possibility of barrier-free living on the ground floor

It is not possible. The bathroom is anything but barrier-free.
(The kitchen as a dead end is not either)

We are facing a similar project. When we asked our home planner / energy consultant about a surface collector, he advised against it: No plants will grow there anymore. It just becomes a meadow. Our building plot is significantly smaller. Both could fit at your place. Just consider in advance where the collector should be and how the garden should be used in that area. Also just throwing this out there, in case you don’t already know it: The ring trench collector as a special form of the surface collector might also be suitable here.

Too bad I can't edit here, so as a double post: I would also consider attaching the garage to the neighbor's garage. That’s how it looks to me in your floor plan. That way, you could possibly set the garage a bit forward so that it aligns with the neighbor’s garage to the north. The site plan probably shows the existing building? And another point: the walls on the ground floor and the upper floor seem partially misaligned to me. I'm not a structural engineer, but I have the impression that this is something to discuss before spending too much time on floor plans that in the end might not be buildable. In the upper floor bathroom, one should consider whether there is enough space at the sink. It might be just enough to hit someone standing in front of the mirror while putting on makeup with the door when entering. Regards

I would also consider attaching the garage to the neighbor's garage. That is how it looks to me in your floor plan. That way you could possibly also set the garage a bit forward, so that it is aligned with the neighbor's garage to the north.

Since the site plan does not show how the plan status envisages it, moving the garage forward from the plan status would likely mean that you basically cannot get into the garage. Because I estimate the driveway to the property is about 4 max. 5 meters wide.

On the upper floor, one should consider whether the space at the sink is sufficient. It could be just enough for someone applying makeup in front of the mirror to get hit in the back with the door when someone enters.

I agree. But there is still the fundamental issue of accessibility on the ground floor, which I, like , do not see as given. Therefore, the question to ... is there already an actual diagnosis today that will make this necessary sooner or later, or is it "just" because of possibly spending old age in the house?

Hello everyone,

thank you already for your quick answers and constructive feedback!

Not possible. The bathroom is anything but barrier-free.
(the kitchen as a dead end neither)

I completely agree with you about the bathroom, but it could relatively easily be extended to the left around the cloakroom area. Where do you see the problem with the kitchen?

We are facing a similar project. We asked our house planner / energy consultant about a surface collector and he advised against it: Plants won’t grow anymore there. It will just be lawn.
...
Just throwing it in the room, in case you don’t know it already: The ring trench collector as a special form of surface collector might also be an option here.

That’s a good hint. I think the choice whether or not to use a collector, or which type, ultimately depends on the energy demand of the house and thus the required collector surface, and then we can make a decision. For example, if the surface collector finds space under an already planned "play meadow," that wouldn’t be a problem.

I would also consider attaching the garage to the neighbor’s garage. This is how it looks to me on your floor plan as well. This way you might also be able to move the garage a bit forward so that it aligns with the neighbor’s garage to the north

Extending the garage forward will be difficult due to the driveway. The driveway width is about 4.50 m, so you definitely need space to maneuver.

The site plan presumably shows the existing building?

Exactly, the site plan shows the situation before demolition.

And as another point: the walls on the ground floor and the upper floor seem partly quite offset from each other. I’m not a structural engineer, but I get the impression that one should talk about this before spending too much time on floor plans that might ultimately not be buildable.

The issue of walls being aligned is on our radar as well. However, I wondered how serious this problem actually is, as in many mass housing provider type houses we’ve looked at online, the walls are no more aligned than here.

In the upstairs bathroom, one should consider whether the space at the sink is sufficient. It might just be tight enough that someone applying makeup in front of the mirror could get the door slammed in their back when entering.

That’s a good point. Space-wise, an alternative layout should work; we will look into that again.

But there is still the fundamental question of barrier freedom on the ground floor, which I, like , do not see as given. Therefore the question to ... is there already an actual diagnosis today that makes this necessary sooner or later, or is this "only" because of possible old age in the house?

Thanks for your question. Luckily, we are currently doing very well and do not need barrier freedom at the moment. It is about not having to leave the house despite a (hypothetical) illness or accident, whether in old age or earlier. We have already observed many cases in our family and friends circle where the absence of a living room or shower bathroom on the ground floor made home care impossible, but in other cases living at home was unproblematic because all important functions of the house were on one level. Perhaps that is why the term "barrier-free" according to DIN standard is not quite appropriate, as we do not necessarily have to meet it; it is more about not blocking the possibility or artificially creating hurdles. If a bathroom has to be converted upon onset of a disability, that’s possible, but if I don’t have a bathroom or an additional room on the ground floor at all, the situation looks worse.

Best regards
Hannes