Floor plan design single-family house solid wood construction 140 sqm in Lower Saxony

The problem with do-it-yourself work is always that you misjudge and especially don’t take into account that you pay significantly more for the materials than the craftsman. Also, and especially civil engineers often misjudge this very, very easily because they tend to underestimate the professional factor (which they know from construction) compared to the amateur by too much. That would happen to me as well if I had to estimate my work for a layperson.

That is of course true – however, for some materials I get almost the same prices as the craftsmen (building materials trade, employee conditions).

I already said it once. You’re missing a clamp, you go to the hardware store. You come back, you’re missing a screw, you go to the hardware store... the craftsman just goes to his car and has all the stuff there.

Super annoying, but clearly it’s like that everywhere. I can take most things from our specialist store after work; for everything else the nearest hardware store is about 6 km from the construction site. Our rental house is currently exactly in between, with 3 km distance to the construction site. It could be much worse – but of course we have to plan that in as well. :)

A big problem with do-it-yourself is then also to stick with it... for example, I was sure I would lay all the floors myself, including the tiles. Now I’m busy with work again, the house handover is approaching... so we’ve outsourced the tiles... Do-it-yourself takes time... and you can only move in when certain things are finished.

Regarding the floor coverings, I secretly hope that the budget will still say in the end that I can outsource it. :D I hope that during construction we’ll also be realistic enough to redesign the plan if necessary and let the professional do it – especially when strength wanes and time is running out...

At first glance, I find the floor plan quite solid. However, upon closer inspection, I have doubts about the staircase. It looks too small to me. Are there exact measurements and values for it? What story heights are planned?

The kitchen seems a bit outdated and small in this form. The path to the terrace from there is also annoyingly long - in my opinion, a direct exit is missing. I think moving the seating area is not a good idea on the ground floor. However, giving up the third gable on the upper floor is indeed a missed opportunity. I find the utility room, HAR, a bit too large in relation to the overall size. I would suggest marking the technical installations and radically shifting walls here. The window also seems to be unfortunately placed or too large in the HAR.

The low kneewall on the upper floor causes regular head bumps at the bed. What roof pitch was used in the example?

Overall, I find it all too old-fashioned and partly impractical. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with log construction, so alternative proposals could quickly fail in implementation.

It wouldn’t be my choice, such a log house. Symmetry isn’t really my thing either. But why the flair is mentioned here in the thread at all doesn’t necessarily make sense to me by saying the flair works like this floor plan works. I would never think of a (mostly plastered) flair when I read log house. And if you like symmetry, then the third gable should be arranged symmetrically. So why question it now? Why always complain or indirectly name other houses to confuse the questioner? Even if it’s not “my” floor plan or “my” house: The floor plan will work, even if the wooden walls naturally also restrict at the intersections. One must also be aware that stairs right in front of the front door are annoying if you rush up and down barefoot or in socks, but residents also bring dirt inside. Personally, the cloakroom area would be too narrow and dark for me. Even an adult needs a bit of discipline if they want to resist the temptation to just take off their shoes in front of the toilet. I find the hallway quite large, but that fits with the rather conservative rest. I would probably swap the door and the stove so that the house welcomes you openly upon entry. What would really bother me, though, are the many windows that are thrown randomly onto the gable sides. That can be done a bit more elegantly with such a simple floor plan. One should also make the north side more attractive with windows. Instead, the planner emphasizes symmetry with the dormer windows. I would arrange those deliberately, especially because a refrigerator of 40 cm requires the standing height of the windows. Definitely put the refrigerator as high as possible and, if the bay window is already elaborate, also extend it upwards. Because 40 cm is virtually nothing. Also, the bed probably won’t be able to stand as it does in the bedroom. The bathroom also looks bigger than it is. But of course it’s sufficient. The terrace door must definitely be wider, otherwise you don’t really go outside. Personally, I would also choose bigger windows, that is, deeper or wider everywhere to let light into the house. Keep in mind that you have spruce inside and not white walls like most. The wood will not reflect any daylight and will absorb a lot of light.

Unfortunately, your eaves and ridge height are calculated less favorably than ours based on the averaged street finished floor level. The current planning may already be too high. Because a wooden house should ideally be one step higher than the surrounding soil / finished ground level with the top edge of the finished floor. There will probably be no room left to increase the eaves height. I only realized after sending that with drywall in front of the walls, otherwise no sliding strips would be necessary. Drywall doesn't work at all with such walls. We only have exposed wooden ceilings; walls would only have been possible in individual cases with a lot of effort.

That definitely sounds like an interesting project. The budget will be exciting, since solid wood is a rather expensive way to build and you’re at a good 2800 €/sqm including ancillary construction costs. What I personally miss is a sketch with the property boundaries. At the moment, the garden seems a bit fragmented to me, due to the carport in the back corner. I find the development plan completely stupid in its requirements, but you’ll probably have to live with it. The question is whether, for example, attaching the carport to the house wouldn’t allow a more clever use of the property.

We would buy the house from the manufacturer including insulation, cladding, and roof structure. The assembly then follows the master carpenter mounting principle (the company provides two experienced people, plus 4-5 helpers from us - full warranty and savings in the range of 15,000-20,000 euros, about three to four weeks of hard work). Additionally, windows and the front door are included in the manufacturer’s "basic package," since they have to be specially installed due to the settling of the house.

You’re not, by any chance, building with Fullwood like ?

I understood you this way: So you mean to completely forget the symmetry of the house, to move the dining nook further west (= in the middle of the children's room?) as more than just a single-story "extension," in order to plan a gable running over both floors there in the main children's room coming out?

I don't waste a single thought on symmetry for well under 250 sqm. My suggestions are always to be understood conceptually, not as shifting walls in the respective concrete floor plan with its dimensional consequences. I only noticed that the ground floor plan practically invites a captain’s gable, which makes the roof windows obsolete. In these dimensions, however, the gable is divided between both children’s rooms and is, in my opinion, way too much to die for and too little to live with, hence my suggestion to assign it only to the children’s room and not also to the spare room. Furthermore, I then thought in terms of a young family and own labor along the lines of Town & Country instead of Viebrockhaus. My criticism does not principally apply to either your shown floor plan or the "block" house, nor would I advocate for the plaster house. My association Flair 113 also comes from the fact that I consider it comparable because I would have never in my feelings assumed under 140 sqm for the floor plan shown here. If the priority is on a shell construction basis, I see at least equally good results achievable with a timber frame panel model or as an aerated concrete kit house. A log house as a construction method alone is already okay; only in combination with an individual design do alarm bells ring for me (not to be confused with a disaster guarantee!) – simply because this implies that the design is not concretely "proven to work"; the height restrictions are no joke. I find the ridge direction unfortunate, which the development plan absolutely prescribes (so not fixed on the floor plan). In my opinion, the simplest cure is obvious, as the house orientation is unfavorable in my view: west bedroom, south living kitchen, bay window to the neighbor. The top of the plan is at about 10 degrees (NNE); I would find it more favorable turned to 100 degrees (ESE). Absolute heights concern me far more here than the comparatively distant risk of two-story construction.