ypg
2023-09-01 19:37:06
- #1
So, first of all, you have to praise that there are still house wishes that are affordable and therefore rather modest. I mean that positively. I can hardly bear to see all the squeezed-in children's bathrooms, dining rooms, walk-in closets, and dressing room must-haves in such abundance like a wish bag anymore.
However, I am also saddened by how soberly people approach the matter of "house building," that not even the emotional questions about what is liked or not liked are answered. Recently, someone here absolutely refused to fill out the questionnaire and accused the advisors with well-meant answers that they know nothing about the builders and their needs... Well then!
..................
I also consider the price limit to be a moderate limit for a functional house of compact size.
I have a problem here with the word "planning." Because I do not see any planning here. The rooms are simply drawn in soberly, without regard to ergonomics and paths of movement.
The living spaces are stretched out too much to be nice rooms. The living room is simply too long at under 4 meters wide.
The kitchen is also long. Additionally, it is divided into two parts. Because the staircase is simply pushed a bit into the kitchen, a bottleneck arises for sitting and for passing through. The dining area is located beside the dining area in the living room...
The criticism from regarding the term draftsperson and also the "fantasy dimensions," which I often overlook because a) it is a matter of price not to hire an architect b) building with a general contractor with whom you have to be lucky with the employed architect and c) many here show a reasonably clean amateur plan that of course has to be finalized by a professional, I must emphasize here:
You can see that the gentleman did not exactly have aesthetics, design, and styling as a subject of study. However, I expect an engineer to be advisory - and not only in energy technology - and to get the best out of a single-family house if he accepts such an order! This applies to window shapes and placement, room volumes, and rough but feasible and sensible furnishing of bathrooms and kitchens. That means: what is not functional (not to be confused with taste) should not even be recorded. As a professional, one should follow up and, if necessary, design until one can identify with the work.
That has become rare but is of course legitimate.
Well then... I will first join the criticism of the orientation: I see no causal connection to connect the driveway to the driveway of relatives. The house will stand alone, and so it belongs in the best orientation on the plot. The west side should therefore serve to illuminate the living area with window surfaces, since you can enjoy the west sun rather after work than the east sun.
Regarding the kitchen: It was already said: Too narrow at the dining table, too wide at the work surface. This could be well solved with the functional swap: a double row by the sliding door, and a nice dining area in the wide section. Nevertheless, the narrow living area remains.
I think the staircase is simply wrong in the middle there!
Also, I would plan at least an 80 cm knee wall, preferably a one-meter-high dwarf wall, so that you can better arrange the interior. The bathroom is already hinted at: with compact bathrooms and sloping roofs, tub and toilet should be under the slope so there is standing height for washbasin and shower.
Conservative windows can also delight. I have seen the window-door combo in 70s houses and occasionally as a faux pas. It is neither fish nor fowl. The windows on the upper floor are not sufficient for the rooms and may also be set a little more centrally. I know the drawing program, and it can also provide window dimensions!!!
Since the enclosed corridor plays a major role for you on both the ground floor and upper floor, I would give it daylight.
There is no room for a generous wardrobe.
My tip: Since you have rather modest wishes, I advise you to simply google compact gable roof houses and take a design found online. Possibly, you can change one or the other thing according to your wishes, e.g. a larger and closed kitchen to fit a dining area. But basically, a dining area already takes up a lot of space – your 18 sqm is quite tight in size.
They usually also have architects they work with.
However, I am also saddened by how soberly people approach the matter of "house building," that not even the emotional questions about what is liked or not liked are answered. Recently, someone here absolutely refused to fill out the questionnaire and accused the advisors with well-meant answers that they know nothing about the builders and their needs... Well then!
House design
Who is the planner:
-Do-it-Yourself, draftsperson
What do you particularly like? Why?
What do you not like? Why?
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: 500k
Preferred heating technology:
If you have to do without, which details/extensions
-can you do without:
-can you not do without:
..................
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: 500k
I also consider the price limit to be a moderate limit for a functional house of compact size.
In the bathroom, I am still checking how it works out with the sloping roof and the washbasin.
The cabinets mean nothing; according to colleagues, the software messed up a bit when creating the PDF.
My concern here was whether there are major errors in the plan.
When we have everything finally planned
I have a problem here with the word "planning." Because I do not see any planning here. The rooms are simply drawn in soberly, without regard to ergonomics and paths of movement.
The living spaces are stretched out too much to be nice rooms. The living room is simply too long at under 4 meters wide.
The kitchen is also long. Additionally, it is divided into two parts. Because the staircase is simply pushed a bit into the kitchen, a bottleneck arises for sitting and for passing through. The dining area is located beside the dining area in the living room...
The criticism from regarding the term draftsperson and also the "fantasy dimensions," which I often overlook because a) it is a matter of price not to hire an architect b) building with a general contractor with whom you have to be lucky with the employed architect and c) many here show a reasonably clean amateur plan that of course has to be finalized by a professional, I must emphasize here:
For a draftsperson, this is quite a messy dimensioning, has he already graduated?
You can see that the gentleman did not exactly have aesthetics, design, and styling as a subject of study. However, I expect an engineer to be advisory - and not only in energy technology - and to get the best out of a single-family house if he accepts such an order! This applies to window shapes and placement, room volumes, and rough but feasible and sensible furnishing of bathrooms and kitchens. That means: what is not functional (not to be confused with taste) should not even be recorded. As a professional, one should follow up and, if necessary, design until one can identify with the work.
Open or closed architecture: closed
Conservative or modern construction method: conservative
That has become rare but is of course legitimate.
Please give criticism of our design.
Well then... I will first join the criticism of the orientation: I see no causal connection to connect the driveway to the driveway of relatives. The house will stand alone, and so it belongs in the best orientation on the plot. The west side should therefore serve to illuminate the living area with window surfaces, since you can enjoy the west sun rather after work than the east sun.
Regarding the kitchen: It was already said: Too narrow at the dining table, too wide at the work surface. This could be well solved with the functional swap: a double row by the sliding door, and a nice dining area in the wide section. Nevertheless, the narrow living area remains.
I think the staircase is simply wrong in the middle there!
Also, I would plan at least an 80 cm knee wall, preferably a one-meter-high dwarf wall, so that you can better arrange the interior. The bathroom is already hinted at: with compact bathrooms and sloping roofs, tub and toilet should be under the slope so there is standing height for washbasin and shower.
Conservative windows can also delight. I have seen the window-door combo in 70s houses and occasionally as a faux pas. It is neither fish nor fowl. The windows on the upper floor are not sufficient for the rooms and may also be set a little more centrally. I know the drawing program, and it can also provide window dimensions!!!
Since the enclosed corridor plays a major role for you on both the ground floor and upper floor, I would give it daylight.
There is no room for a generous wardrobe.
My tip: Since you have rather modest wishes, I advise you to simply google compact gable roof houses and take a design found online. Possibly, you can change one or the other thing according to your wishes, e.g. a larger and closed kitchen to fit a dining area. But basically, a dining area already takes up a lot of space – your 18 sqm is quite tight in size.
Surrounding timber construction companies
They usually also have architects they work with.