A room for cabinets and thus the action area in front of the cabinets separately and not integrated into the bedroom – just as you drew it yourself. That’s another 3 sqm more than with conventional planning.
I would tend to go along with that. A room for extra action area in front of the cabinets, as I drew back then. But of course, we can also put that on optionally :)
But you didn’t address that at all.
Hmm, then I must have forgotten. I liked the idea, especially if it simplifies the room layout. Also, you would have gained parking spaces for guests in front of the garage. The space behind the garage will probably not be used much anyway.
On the contrary, you are very stubborn with your parameters. Everything seems non-negotiable or you are not willing to compromise. First, it was the freezer room that absolutely had to be set at half height, then it felt like the roof surfaces and house orientation, then the terrace location.
I’m just taking the part about the children's rooms out, how inflexible that thinking is.
Well, the children’s rooms are important to me because they often feel like prison cells. Bed, desk, wardrobe, some space to turn around, that's it.
No space to change much in the room design or areas where the kids can play alone or retreat. But if you are supposed to plan without m² specifications, you now have a rough idea of how I imagine children’s rooms.
The stubbornness, e.g. achieving nice children’s rooms or the office with minimum sqm, is a big mistake. Either you can afford it or not. There are such beautiful and spacious 12 sqm children’s rooms that easily outdo other badly planned larger rooms. A good plan, a good design can get by without sqm specifications; 3-4 must-have dimensions are enough to make a house/room functional, but even these dimensions are not set in stone if a compromise leads to a nearly 90% perfect house design.
If my thoughts seem too concrete or stubborn, I will try to describe it differently further below.
I have another problem:
The existing building has a double garage/carport of 6 meters set back from the boundary. Then there is another garage in the middle, where it’s unclear if it will be rebuilt or already exists.
As the preliminary planning currently stands, at least in the plans submitted to us, 9 meters width of the property is claimed here. You then have basically 17 meters left for garden and house. For me, by the way, another reason to try the house crosswise.
The middle garage can be disregarded; that was our architect’s suggestion to reuse the old garages. The garage length at the property boundary is indeed a problem. But there is an existing setback area transfer to the east side; however, this expired with the removal of the existing garages. Upon inquiry, the neighbor promised to re-sign it for the new building since he only has bushes/trees there anyway.
Also, I don’t see the roof being considered at all in the planning. I would probably try to minimize the footprint, make the freezer room also as a utility room on the raised ground floor, the children's rooms and utility room on the upper floor and then the parents under the roof. Wishes like 2nd bathroom, dressing room, pantry, minimum sizes, etc. arise or not. And if an optimum with terrace location or wwi is not achieved, then you take the semi-optimum. You can live well with that too.
I have to laugh because I just dug up this fitting post.
I don’t know much about the roof; our architect doesn’t know the maximum building height. He would orient himself by the prior official notice and not go beyond that. That would result in a building height of 8 m. At least 50 cm off the ground means 7.5 m usable? With this height, can the roof really be used?
Oh – I hadn’t even thought about that. With the existing garage, we already have about 6 m boundary development. If the 2nd garage were built, that would be 12 m. Usual maximum is 15 m. Do we have an exception here? If the old building is removed, the existing protection might lapse? Then you would have to plan 3 m distance to the east boundary.
See above, we have to get that signed by the neighbor.
I’ll try to abstract the wishes as ypg suggests. Let’s see if I understood it.
We would like a single-family house with three children’s rooms, which are similar in size and not only serve as sleeping spaces but also offer enough flexibility to allow the children some leeway in design.
A home office room is needed where work can still be done despite family life.
To accommodate physical limitations, work paths inside the household should be efficient and short.
The living/dining/kitchen area should be designed so that the children can do homework there under supervision or that it serves as the focal point.
You need a bit of space for the path, just to make the curve from the driveway to the garage, but yes 9 m really hurts. On the north side, you could gain some space, but I don’t know if the parents would agree since they would no longer be able to access their garage nicely.