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

I also find it pretty old-fashioned – but there are people who like that. The round arch into the wardrobe is one of those things from the 70s – do you really want that? It also doesn’t really fit, in my opinion, with a wooden house whose walls inside remain made of planks. That means carving a round arch into the horizontal structure of the planks – which, to be honest, I find absolutely terrible. The round arches also aren’t necessarily a design element that excites me in a white wall, but at least there it doesn’t work against the linear structure of a wooden wall. Think it over again, I believe it will look pretty awful.

The kitchen might already be from the 80s, but not more – it could be more. I wouldn’t want it like that.

The seating nook looks so cozy but is a disaster in real life. I speak from experience, my parents have something like that. Expensive custom carpentry; we moved in in ’74 and my parents were so proud of the seating nook. In the end, kids always sat in the back on the bench, because they could easily crawl out if someone had to use the bathroom during the meal. And crawling out means: standing on the bench and walking around everyone’s back until you’re outside. Otherwise, everyone stands up until the one in the middle at the back is outside. And that isn’t fun either, just try it in a furniture store: take a conventional corner bench and slide around the table on the bench from one end to the other. That’s roughly what you have to do if you’re sitting at the back on the bench and first want to get there or get out again. It’s annoying! I would strongly advise against it! But it fits the era of the 70s-80s – that’s what they had. So basically consistent. But not practical.

Take a normal table with chairs/bench/benches and make the window into a patio door; then the way from the kitchen to the terrace isn’t such a big deal anymore.

Everything else I noticed has already been mentioned and I won’t repeat it, but I agree with that.

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

I had also briefly considered it, especially since the floor plan looks similar in design.

The wall construction might be relevant here: Inside 100mm log plank, 200mm blown-in cellulose insulation, 55mm log plank as exterior cladding. Visually more in the direction of a Swedish house, so not whole tree trunks.

But they (in my opinion) don’t offer that kind of exterior walls. For us, there was only combo block (900mm log plank, 1200mm frame with insulation), 400mm installation space possibly with insulation and then plank (210mm) or drywall / clay or whatever. Or full log with 2100 - 2700 mm wood.

Anyways, if it should be Fullwood, definitely pay attention to your bathroom if it has a knee wall. Fullwood can’t do that ;).

Anyways, if it should be , definitely pay attention to your bathroom if it has a knee wall. Fullwood can’t do that

What exactly can they not do there? - here there will probably be a vacuum knee wall, so it might be necessary to work partly with an additional dwarf wall. That also reminds me,

In my opinion, it also doesn’t really fit a wooden house whose walls remain made of planks on the inside.

how one would possibly design the sanitary service walls (?)

What exactly can't they do there? - there will probably be a vacuum cleaner knee wall here, so it might be necessary to work partially with an additional dwarf wall.

I know of at least 5 building families where the bathroom was completely messed up in the planning. In our case, the 2-meter line was entered incorrectly (we even asked last June if that could somehow be wrong), which meant that the head height in the area of the toilet was only 175 cm instead of the planned almost 2 meters. Good thing we are both short. The door didn’t fit into the slope either, so the shower had to be planned differently to ensure at least 180 cm of head “room,” and the door frame might only need to be cut. The others had similar problems as well, even in different branches.

I do not fully understand the general concerns regarding the knee wall yet. The eaves height is 4m. That is about 1m knee wall – in such small houses, even more depending on ceiling height. The marked 40cm or whatever that was are not necessary at all, right?

I don't quite understand the general concerns regarding knee wall height yet. The eaves height is 4m. That is about 1m knee wall – in such small houses even more depending on ceiling height. The drawn 40cm or whatever it was is not really necessary, right?

I tend to agree with "or". Because between the unfavorable reference point

The lower reference level for the eaves and ridge height is the final road surface level of the adjacent access road in the middle of the street frontage of the property (street side from which the access is provided).

and the eaves height

The upper reference point for determining the maximum height is the intersection of the eaves-side exterior wall with the (eaves height) or the highest point of the roof covering of a building structure (ridge height).

there is apparently enough difference, but a nice chunk of that is already consumed just to get from the street to the house, whereby in the case of a wooden house the heavy rainproof foot frame height is a critical point. By the time we have effectively climbed to the more familiar reference height of the finished ground floor level, the hill climber already has half a dozen drops of sweat on their forehead. The worst case of 40 cm knee wall mentioned at the beginning can probably be exceeded, but unfortunately probably no more than symbolically.