Floor plan design of a single-family house with approximately 130 sqm living area

Hello everyone,

attached is our draft for a single-family house. I am looking forward to your critical feedback and any questions. Thanks in advance!

Development plan/restrictions
Plot size: 500sqm
Slope: no
Floor area ratio: 0.4 (built according to draft 0.26)
Floor space index: 2
Building line: Construction mandatory at plot boundary (preserving the urban character)
Number of parking spaces: 1
Number of floors: 2
Roof shape: gable roof
Maximum heights/limits: WH between 6.00 - 7.50 / FH max. 11m
Other: no or only minimal roof overhang possible

Requirements of the builders
Style, roof shape, building type: townhouse with cost-optimized floor plan (without projections/recesses, gables, etc.)
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of persons, age: 3 persons (38y, 38y, 2y)
Space requirement on ground floor, upper floor: approx. 120-130sqm
Office: family use or home office? Home office
Overnight guests per year: between 20-25
Open or closed architecture: open
Conservative or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen
Number of dining seats: 4 standard (+4) with extension
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: carport
Utility garden, greenhouse: greenhouse
Further special features:
- Streetlamp at bedroom height

House design
Who is the planner: Primarily own planning with impulses from the architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
- Utility room with 2nd entrance as a mudroom
- bright open kitchen with spacious terrace
- two workrooms / home office still possible with guests
- open-rafter rooms on the upper floor with sleeping gallery
- covered entrance through carport
What do you not like? Why?
- house view NW (window arrangement)
- no trees on the plot; a good, constructive sun protection on the terrace is absolutely necessary
- no evening sun in the garden
- the small workroom could get too hot in summer (many windows, little space)

Price estimate according to architect/planner: 400K
Personal price limit for the house, incl. equipment: 450K
Preferred heating technology: air-water heat pump

If you had to do without, which details/extensions
- you can do without: bikeport / 2nd home office / shower on the ground floor
- you cannot do without: home office, bedroom, children's room

Why is the design as it is now? For example
The design is the result of:
- our needs analysis
- the available funds
- inspirations from show homes and media (magazines / books / YouTube)

Is the house located directly on the street where the building line runs? Would you like to explain that in more detail or also sketch the surroundings/street/access?

And what are you planning in the gallery in the bedroom and office, where there is hardly any standing space?

Note: the staircase is below standard at 19/26, which means it is less comfortable due to the slope, and the tread is narrower.

Hello,

Is the house directly on the street where the building line runs? Would you like to explain that in more detail or also sketch the surroundings/street/access?

Exactly, according to the development plan, the house must be located on the front building line and directly adjacent to the sidewalk to maintain the existing building alignment in the neighborhood. The street is a cobblestone path that is rarely used. The sidewalk runs directly in front of the house. That is why we have no living rooms on the street side, but rather a guest WC, stairs, and a technical room. I have attached a screenshot of the street in front of the property for better understanding.

And what are you planning for the gallery in the bedroom and office, where there is barely any standing space?

- Bedroom: Probably a retreat for reading and meditating
- Office: A bed to offer the room, among other things, to guests with children (sleeping on the gallery and on the sofa bed).
In principle, we want to keep the living spaces on the upper floor as flexible as possible. Even though the design currently shows a classic bedroom, basically every family member has their own room here. The gallery gives us more flexibility with the small room size of 12 sqm, whether for a bed, play area, reading corner, storage, or similar.

Note: the staircase is below the standard of 19/26, meaning it is less comfortable due to the steepness, and the tread is narrower.

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of that.

The utility room on the ground floor is comparatively too large, while the living spaces are too small. Galleries on the upper floor are nonsense - they are not used and dirt accumulates there, which no one cleans up. Besides, they also cost something, for which you would rather buy more space overall. Is this closet in the hallway upstairs important? Planning this tiny hallway just for it seems like a waste of space to me.

I attached a screenshot of the street in front of the property for better understanding.

Thank you very much. That gives a better impression. Actually, it looks quite cozy, and the missing front garden probably will not be missed either. There also seems to be parking space available for visitors and so on.

In principle, we want to keep the living spaces on the upper floor as flexible as possible. ... The gallery gives us more flexibility with the small room size of 12 sqm, whether for a bed, play area, reading corner, storage, or similar.

- Office: A bed to also offer the room, among other things, to guests with children (sleeping on the gallery and on the sofa bed).

I must confess that I see exactly the opposite of flexibility. Everyone has their own little cubicle that simply cannot be used properly. For a child, this is hardly a "staircase," it is more a ladder that they should not and cannot climb alone. Adults cannot stand upright at the front (I once drew this in section). You get nothing from the final height (about 2.20 m?) at the gable. Due to the width of 1.70 m, the room is already blocked by a bed standing from one side to the gable side. Then there is no benefit left for anything else.
A bed also needs to be made, fitted with sheets... cleaning up crumbs from the child, etc. As a guest, it might be nice as a tiny house for one night, but I wouldn’t really spend money on a room that I have to awkwardly climb into like a contorted creature just to shuffle around in it.
[ATTACH alt="Bildschirmfoto 2024-06-17 um 11.12.16.png"]86300[/ATTACH]
The slants here are the stairs, the verticals are the railing and partition wall.

I also don't see storage space with the steep ladder setup. Whatever goes up there once, stays there before you have an accident on the stairs carrying a large box. There is no space left at the bottom of the stairs to comfortably land in the room (working, child). The staircase in the bedroom doesn't work at all in terms of location.

- Bedroom: Probably a retreat room for reading and meditating

I can still imagine that, but in the long run, I’d probably stay in the room itself or enjoy the living room when the house is empty. But that’s up to you, maybe reconsider.
It should also be mentioned that small rooms appear even smaller with an open gable because the ceiling height is higher than the width of the room. In these cases, it looks very restless upwards because the protective ceiling is broken through.

Opening into the attic increases construction costs due to the insulation of the roof. You are turning the roof area into living space. The skylights are not cheap either. I am always in favor of attic conversions so small houses benefit from additional space. But I see no advantage in doing it separately for each room. Why don’t you design one room for everyone? Then you can have mattresses that either serve children during sleepovers or adults for a break during the day.

I must confess that I do not consider the kitchen very practical for everyday use. It is too small. If I divide my kitchen, which is sufficient for two to three people, into room segments, namely 1 for each 60 cm module and 2 for tall cabinets including the fridge, I come to 19 without wall cupboards. That’s just enough. A few years ago I added another cabinet. The rest of our frozen goods are in the freezer room. You have just 9! Less than half.
In the 40 sqm there is unused space in the middle, a floor-to-ceiling window takes up storage and workspace. There is no working light through a window because of the carport. I also consider the freezer room in this house too large.
I would always avoid an entrance under a carport. There is too little maneuvering space between the car and the front door, which you yourself but also a delivery person or visitor need.

With 70 sqm living space or 135 sqm total living area, a family of three should get by. It doesn’t need to be bigger. It all has to be paid for after all. However, the usual mistake is wanting "no roof slopes upstairs," so you end up sacrificing living space on both floors.
I almost thought that two floors are required by your development plan, but your neighboring house can tell a different story.
In your place, I would actually replace the two-story house with a single-story plus attic (mistakenly called 1 1/2 stories). You could go up to 80/85 sqm on the ground floor and about 50/55 official sqm upstairs, but that would increase the floor areas of the rooms upstairs. With a knee wall (Drempel) of about 125/150 cm, you get rooms with about 15-17 sqm of floor area, which can actually be used more flexibly than an additional small gallery. You seem to have no problem with roof slopes. And if that is still not enough, you can always finish the attic (warning: plan the stairs in advance).
If the ridge orientation is not prescribed, I would also rotate the house orientation, so you have more space on the left and right or alternatively use a completely different floor plan. I would give up the consistent beam layout.

I find the street view incredibly terrible. However, I really like the floor plan.