Floor plan design single-family house 280m² on the slope

In principle, one floor is completely unnecessary. Necessary rooms are in the sleeping floor, the living floor is quite bloated, and the bottom floor contains rooms that one basically doesn’t need. Possibly of course an office, but that could also fit in the living floor including the storage room. In summary: the house is just too much, making it very uncharming. From the afternoon on, you have to do without the sun and its soothing caresses – I can’t imagine anyone feeling comfortable living there for a long time or even just a little while. Probably the mother will eventually be mentally exhausted and the father will hang out in cozier hotel rooms. But I could be wrong [emoji6] I also can’t imagine relaxing in the garden next to a 9-meter-high house. I find two stories already very suspect from the outside when you stand close by.

Basically, one floor is so unnecessary. Necessary rooms are on the sleeping floor; the living floor is quite bloated for that purpose, and the bottom floor contains rooms that one actually does not need.

This is quite typical for the initial planning stages of hillside houses: it is difficult to distribute the required space over two instead of three levels, and one floor is given half of the rooms instead of just a third. In the one below, you cannot omit as much as would actually be surplus, and in the one above, you cannot reduce as much. In total, this results in 150% living space, meaning: the area is around 300 square meters.

Usually, this is solved by having the layperson consult an architect. Unfortunately, that is not the solution if the architect himself is also a layperson when it comes to hillside planning.

However, this only concerns or explains the princely total area here. The window distribution fantasy is yet another construction site by itself.

I can rather imagine that it comes from one corner: the slope is crying out for a basement, the second corner asks: you are building with a basement, right? The third corner says, we need a basement! And the fourth corner knows no house without a basement.

Thus, you have a house without significant garden access, but at least a basement with a terrace :)


I would recommend a new plan.
Because: big is not the same as good.
Personally, I also like spaciousness, also gladly planned storage space, but what is too much is simply exaggerated and makes the house complicated and possibly cold and stark. The SE facade speaks for itself!

With direct awarding, it often costs more than 10% over what was planned. Therefore, to be on the safe side, I would increase the buffer somewhat.

Why direct awarding should exclusively cause the original estimate to be exceeded by 10% cries out for an explanation [emoji4]
I can see neither a connection nor a regularity here. Most overruns by x% are probably more rooted in the ever-increasing demands of the client than in the fact of individual awarding. Appetite usually comes with eating. I think that an experienced architect can make quite good, accurate cost estimates, but often as the client you want more and more... I speak from my own experience [emoji6]
However, the minimum 10% buffer is definitely very good advice – full agreement therefore [emoji1303]

Why direct awarding should exclusively have the exceedance of the original estimate by 10% demands an explanation [emoji4] I can see neither a connection nor a regularity here. Most exceedances by x% are probably more rooted in the ever-growing desires of the client, less in the fact of individual awarding. Appetite usually comes with eating. I think an experienced architect can make fairly accurate cost estimates, but often as a client you want more and more... I speak from my own experience [emoji6] The minimum 10% buffer is definitely very good advice - full agreement on that [emoji1303]

I said nothing different :). Nothing to add to that. With direct awarding you just too often have the choice to pick something better :D

Ahh ok, then I misunderstood. Sorry, my mistake [emoji847]