Floor plan design of a 100 m² bungalow with expansion reserve

The purpose of such a solution is that guests only have to enter the WC area. I can't immediately think of a design solution for this in the current constellation either.

Due to other concerns, such as the sun path and effects on the rooms, I am not 100% convinced of the current layout anyway. The division and planning of the rooms is okay, but in connection with the sun position, I currently don't find the solution suitable.

I can't think of a guest who wouldn't be allowed in my bathroom.

But aside from that, I wouldn't want the bedroom in the middle of the house (if there's a second person, that's already not nice), nor the terrace in the east and the living and dining rooms in the north and east.

Here the wishes and needs of a man are depicted. When you place the house on the plot, you realize that there is no garden at all. There is only a strip around it. The driveway/double carport with 7 meters is wider than the garden strip on the left side of the plan. The house is approximately 11.50 by 22.50 in depth, hardly anything remains if you subtract one meter for a hedge. I think it is the wrong house for the plot.

Why the wide driveway?

but a wide driveway with plenty of space would be a lot of quality of life for me.

That says a lot. A wide driveway has nothing to do with quality when you use a backup camera nowadays. And you can widen/narrow the width individually, so the front doesn’t have to be exactly as wide as the carport. For me, this is clearly a man thing – the driveway, which others also see, must look big and strong.

I once briefly sketched that a slimmer gable roof would be the better solution, wide enough so that a staircase at 30 degrees reaches the ridge. And then zoned, with the entrance on the long side at the courtyard, living in the west and private rooms in the east. Kitchen in the south, utility room to the north.

... the beds are part of the road construction/road layout and therefore their space must be taken into account. See photo: [ATTACH alt="grundrissplanung-bungalow-100-m2-mit-ausbaureserve-665352-1.png"]86543[/ATTACH]

Thanks, now the nonsense with the huge driveway and the mega men's garage is clear to me. I'm out with such rubbish. You can continue planning the dark hut without a garden and with total sealing on your own.

Are you even allowed to exceed the floor area ratio by that much? 540m² floor area ratio 0.3, meaning you are allowed to build 162m² and there are indeed development plans that exclude permissible exceedance for paths and ancillary facilities.

Your bungalow alone already has 132m² floor area, the double carport and the driveway easily 100.

By the way, I find our 4.5m wide driveway quite practical when cars are parked there and the children roll their bikes along it. But. Children and their peculiarities are rarely a topic for some, I know.

Thank you very much for the many further suggestions and comments since my last post.

Neither is set in stone. The planner chose the dimensions and roof pitch this way because a hip roof is to be converted here with two rooms. With the hip roof, you have much less living space under the roof than with a gable.

30 degrees seems appropriate. You can make a knee wall inside, but you don't have to. It results from the conversion.

A gable roof with a 30-degree pitch would have significantly less area than a hip roof, but are we simply leaving out the attic space then? Should that still be enough as conversion reserve for two rooms plus a bathroom?

Rough calculation:
For a hip roof with a 45-degree pitch and 10 x 10 m² base area I get
Area with height more than 2 m: 8 x 8 m² = 64 m²
Area with height 1 m to 2 m: 9 x 9 m² - 64 m² = 17 m²
Giving a theoretical total area of 64 m² + 17/2 m² = 72.5 m²

For a gable roof with a 45-degree pitch and 10 x 10 m² base area, on the other hand,
Area with height more than 2 m: 3.08 x 10 m² = 30.8 m²
Area with height 1 m to 2 m: 6.44 x 10 m² - 30.8 m² = 33.6 m²
Giving a theoretical total area of 30.8 m² + 33.6/2 m² = 47.6 m²

Lowering the ceiling, as that's how it's done.

Okay, I'll have to find out more about that.

But you want to be able to use the bathroom with two or three people someday, right? Your "not bad" is what one calls "not functional."

I'll think that over again, thanks for the hint.

Do you know how expensive paving is? You mentioned 360,000€. Of that, about 300,000€ goes into the house, 30-50,000€ into ancillary building costs. Rough estimate. Your paving will cost you a five-digit sum, and I assume no 1 in front.

Driveway and carport together are probably too huge, that's true. So you would recommend moving the carport further forward? Practically up to the house boundary? Although it surely depends on which side the driveway is and whether it then becomes wider or not.

Consider whether you really want a wide driveway more than light in the house. For many, your carport orientation to the south would be a no-go. But if that doesn't bother you... It's your house. It just shows that no thought was given to light and cardinal directions at all. For many, that is the foundation and the be-all and end-all of house planning. Otherwise, in winter you sit in your house only with artificial light because daylight yield is not high enough.

That's true, I didn't think about light and cardinal directions. The second design is indeed from the architect but corresponds quite exactly to what I sketched on the drawing board. And there I only tried to combine the arrangement and size of the rooms with my naive wishes.

Artificial light in winter indeed doesn't sound very inviting. I will sketch your suggestion from the other post and see how it looks on paper.

The question is... are there already 2 cars now? Why the wide driveway?

There is only one car. But the carport should have space for two cars, and then such a wide driveway would make sense. At least that was my thinking. But now I know that the driveway can be narrower than the carport.

You could also consider isolating the sofa/TV area and combining cooking/dining, then you don’t need two tables, of which one would mostly be unused anyway.

I probably don't need two tables. However, I would like to have a seating area in the kitchen to eat a small meal. And I actually like a shared living/dining area. I have to think about how and whether to possibly solve it differently. Thanks for the hint.

Bathroom and guest WC... maybe design it so that the bathroom WC can be accessed both from the hallway as guest WC and from the bathroom as bathroom WC, separated towards the bathroom with a sliding door. Then you save one WC.

That idea sounds very interesting, I will see if I can maybe incorporate it in the next draft.

Are there actually any regulations for building lines, ridge alignments, eaves heights, etc.?

There are no regulations for building lines and ridge alignments, as far as I have seen. However, the eaves height for the houses on my street must not exceed 3.7 m.

2. If the attic expansion is optional, the staircase can initially be omitted. Then better only plan the space for it and use the room, e.g., as storage for now. A straight staircase is naturally less suitable for that than, e.g., a half-turn staircase.

I couldn’t access the attic or even use it as simple storage without a staircase at all. So I would like to have the staircase included right away. But thanks for the hint.

Here, the wishes and needs of a man are shown. If you put the house on the plot, you notice that there is no garden at all. There is only a strip around it. The driveway/double carport with 7 meters is wider than the garden strip on the left side of the plan.
The house is about 11.50 by 22.50 deep, barely anything remains if you subtract one meter for the hedge.
I think this is the wrong house for the plot.

I understand the driveway length should be shortened. The house should have two covered parking spaces. That's not unusual, right? And together with the path to the storage room that's 7 m width. Should I instead plan a single carport? But I can’t simply expand that. I would still have to reserve a total of 7 m area next to the house.

The garden size naturally suffers from that. But I couldn’t see how it would work otherwise. Roughly calculated: The plot had an area of 22.5 x 24 m². From the street to the start of the house are 3 m. The house length is 11.5 m. Adding 1 m hedge gives 22.5 m - 15.5 m = 7 m above the house. That is then 24 x 7 m² = 168 m² area above the house.

On the left side, analogously: 24 m - 7 m (carport) - 11.5 m (house) - 1 m (hedge) - 1 m (path) = 3.5 m (beside the house)
Area beside the house: 3.5 x 11.5 m² = 40.24 m²

In total beside and behind the house 208.24 m². Subtracting about 15 m² for the terrace leaves 193.24 m² area for garden and other things beside and above the house.
That’s not "no garden at all," is it? How big should a garden be?

That says a lot. A wide driveway has nothing to do with quality if you drive nowadays with a reversing camera. And width can be individually widened/narrowed, so the front does not have to be as wide as the carport.
For me, this is clearly a guy thing - the driveway, which others see too, must look big and powerful.

I don't want to impress anyone with the driveway. I didn’t even know until now that it’s apparently some kind of status symbol for men. I don’t drive very often and don’t have a reversing camera either. But based on the experiences of people in my personal environment and myself, a wide driveway is more comfortable. Whether it’s because the streets in new neighborhoods have become very narrow lately, other cars block the street, or some beds restrict it.
Of course, the justified objection now is: "If you drive so rarely, why all the effort for such a wide driveway?" The many hours in house and garden surely weigh more than an average of 10 minutes of parking. But as written above, light and cardinal directions were hardly considered in the plan. I myself didn’t know better, and my architect didn’t think it necessary to correct me. But never mind, now I know.

Okay, I want to try a new draft now.

Here’s a sketch where the architect's design is mirrored. Driveway is shorter and goes diagonally. The living room gets a bit more sun due to partial orientation to the south.

[ATTACH alt="20240703_model_egbers_alt35_hausbau-forum.png"]86561[/ATTACH]

6. So if there is willingness to change something, I would put the nice carport to the north to rearrange/shift the room layout. Kitchen/living room could be at an angle, i.e., oriented sideways and above the garden (SE garden or SW). I would want the bedroom opposite the bathroom, if necessary do without guest toilet (unless you party every day).
You don’t have to take the first draft!

I once sketched briefly that a slimmer gable roof would probably be the better solution, as wide as a staircase at 30 degrees reaches the ridge. Then zoned, entrance on the long side at the courtyard, living in the west and private in the east. Kitchen in the south, utility room in the north.

Here is a sketch where I have drawn in some of your suggestions as I understood them:

[ATTACH alt="20240703_model_egbers_alt36_hausbau-forum2.png"]86562[/ATTACH]

Carport in the north, kitchen and living room at an angle toward southeast, bedroom in the (north) east, utility room in the north.
I didn’t manage the bedroom opposite the bathroom.
Should the kitchen in the south then be swapped with the bathroom? Although I actually like short routes between kitchen and utility room, kitchen and terrace, and kitchen and living-dining area.

I would be very happy to get feedback on this sketch, thanks.

Are you even allowed to exceed the floor area ratio that massively? 540 m² Floor area ratio 0.3, i.e., you may build 162 m² and there are actually development plans that exclude permissible exceedance for paths and ancillary facilities.

Your bungalow alone already has 132 m² floor area, the double carport and driveway easily 100.

Good hint, thanks. I checked the zoning plan again and it says

According to § 19 (4) sentence 3 of the Land Use Ordinance, the specified floor area ratio (floor area ratio) for garages, parking spaces with driveways and ancillary facilities under § 14 of the Land Use Ordinance may be exceeded in all WA areas up to a floor area ratio of max. 0.6.

So I should actually be allowed to seal another 162 m² for other things.

I haven't thought about that yet. If I want to convert the attic, insulating the roof probably makes sense, right?

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages. If you insulate the roof right away, you also heat the rooms in the attic with the ground floor, which results in a higher flow temperature of the heating and higher heating costs. If you insulate the intermediate ceiling, then when converting, you have to insulate the roof, which means double the work and costs. Besides the intermediate ceiling, the stairway and the door must also be insulated. If the conversion is planned within a few years, I would do the former. If the question is whether it will ever be converted at all, then I would do the latter.