Floor plan design for KfW 40 single-family house in a developed residential area with fully finished basement

Thank you very much for all your comments - especially all your constructive points.

We have reflected once more and revised a bit. Even though some here demonize the approach or the work of the architect, we have chosen this path and would really appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions for improvement. The surveyor has also been here in the meantime. The height difference is only about 0.9m. I wouldn’t want to “level” the plot either, but rather use the slope to better illuminate the basement.

Maybe you feel like taking a look at the revision and let loose with your feedback ;)

Oh, and yes, the north wall in the basement is slightly shifted - that needs to be corrected ;)

Would you perhaps like to answer the questions regarding the offers from the house building companies? Several people here have raised the same observations and questions. And nobody here wants to discuss castles in the air. At least it can be seen that the basement is solidly planned, so independent of the house itself.

Regarding the design itself: Yes, it can probably be built. I lack some professional competence here: second parking space. Are you supposed to keep swapping the cars back and forth there all your working life? Even if the parking space rule is from 1970, I would still plan according to my needs when building the house, also considering that they can change over time. Children’s fleet, bicycles, you can’t even get to them if one or two cars are parked in the driveway. The exterior appearance with the different window sizes is confusing: 200 cm, 275 cm, 280 cm. In the basement rooms you look out against the nearby shaft, which now doesn’t get any feel-good points. Calculations show that too little daylight can enter.

The technology has moved entirely to the rear area, far from the access road, which is expensive and illogical. In addition, the path to the bathrooms is planned to be the farthest from the technology again, which affects the lifting system as well as the hot water. Then there is a technical room, which, although argued to have to serve for everything else, of course has less storage space on the walls than functional rooms would allow.

Then I find the arrangement of the rooms somewhat clumsy. I think an architect could do a bit more.

The hallway is nicely large and can be lit through the living room doors. However, you can see that the room is large but only 3.60 meters wide. The door area, which seems unnecessary, has the required width.

The cursed T is gone. Good. But 90 cm structural room width for the toilet, that will be difficult with childcare and during illness and cleaning. The dressing room accessible from the bedroom can be disturbing to a partner who wants or has to rest independently.

How is one supposed to build a house and 2-3 independently usable parking spaces on a 414m² plot, complying with all setback requirements, the floor area ratio, and the wish to still have at least a noticeably large terrace and a few square meters of garden? The plot is 15.5m wide; minus 3m on both sides, that leaves barely 9.5m for the house anyway.

Should the place now be set as far back as possible to park 3 vehicles side by side in the front yard and still have 2-3m of garden behind the terrace?

Anyone planning for up to 4 vehicles in the final construction simply must not build on 414m² but look for something from 800m² upwards. The plot does not allow that.

A few minor remarks:
I find the arrangement of the rooms on the upper floor unfortunate.
Example:
Person A gets up. Goes to the bathroom. Comes back. Through the bedroom into the dressing room. Then out of there either downstairs or back to the bathroom to finish their hair. During this time, Person B, unless in a deep sleep, will be awake from the back and forth through the bedroom.
This idea of making the dressing room accessible through the bedroom does not work well for many in practice. I would at least move the door outward if the dimensions allow it.

I find the window areas unfavorable. Not only because of the exterior appearance.
Many rooms have only one window. Yes, that works. But purely in terms of lighting effects, two windows on different walls are in a completely different league. Moreover: better for ventilation and also if one facade side would have to be shaded in summer due to heat exposure. (Of course, in some rooms it cannot be done differently. In others it can.)

I wouldn’t want to “level” the property either, but rather use the slope to better illuminate the basement.

Full agreement. Thoughts: Basement: Save the niches caused by the unnecessary length of the corridor and give that space to the rooms. Access to the bathroom at the end. Enlarge the light shaft around the corner up to under the living room window to get a brighter guest room. Ground floor: Build the wall between the dining area and the "round table living area" with a very nice shelf instead of a wall, if it does not bring significantly higher structural costs. I find the shape of the living room unfortunate, but at the moment I have no better idea. Upper floor: Do without the unnecessary head section in the corridor and give that space to the dressing room. Set the boundary wall from the dressing room to the bedroom in line with the corridor wall. That way you enter the bedroom through the dressing room, which, as already noted, is much more practical, you gain the space needed to actually dress in a dressing room and not just use it as a wardrobe room. Allow the bedroom, child 2, and bathroom to each have an additional window on another wall as suggested by . In the bathroom the window can be small and placed high, making ventilation perfect. In the rooms you gain more daylight conducive to living.

Children’s vehicle fleet, bicycles

Very practical aspect that is difficult to realize on the plot size, as described by . A shed with a narrow access path on the side of the plot opposite the garage could be a solution.

The technology has moved entirely to the rear area, far away from the access road, is expensive and without logic.

The logic is: technology in the darkest corner. The rooms further forward thus have more light through the slight slope. This saves earthworks to bring sufficient light into the rooms. The paths do not cost much and are technically manageable.

Do you have the surveyor's plan? The approval planning must also show elevation profiles.