In #13 the ridge runs the other way... in #17 no ridge is drawn.
In both drafts, however, you can see where the journey is headed, namely oriented towards the garden with the wide eaves side.
I have indicated the ridge as a line in the comparison sketch.
Whatever you mean here by generating reactive power, I mean (in my opinion of course) the latter, i.e. the synopsis between the recently discussed draft (29) after a longer pause and the one shown at the beginning of the thread (1/2). "Not suitable for the plot" would be a floor plan if the plot topographically required a different floor plan. Fit issues between outline and building envelope are usually easy to fix, although they regularly cause scratches on the sacred cow house-garage-airlock (which I, as you know, anyhow recommend to Priority ZZ).
The comparison sketch is now attached, the black line indicates the ridge (or gable strip in #1). In addition, you will find the other suitable ground floor attached.
On this level, the "problems" are popularly home-grown on the manure heap of clients and planners, i.e. actually due to beliefs / wishes, for example maximization of a sunburn south garden or misuse of ancillary building bodies as side privacy purposes. For example, it seems important to you to subordinate the dog to the tail, i.e. living to the solar gain. That works excellently as a recipe for unhappiness, or quite certainly produces a (actually avoidable) long series of not quite satisfactory floor plans yet.
I do not "prioritize" the upper floor, but only know and illuminate the causal connection between the phenomenon of planning self-binding in the own goal dead end through the "forward parking", to formulate the ground floor in front of the upper floor. Since my beloved motivates me to positive expressions, I do not say "Beware of starting with the ground floor," but rather: "one proceeds most skillfully in such a way that after the joint quantification and qualification of the room program and its distribution on ground and upper floors, one continues first with the drawing translation on the upper floor." This way the dough remains kneadable until it has found its shape.
We had planned the layout as follows:
[*] Basement: workshop, storage, utility room, technical room
[*] Ground floor: guest room/office, bathroom (shower and WC), pantry, kitchen, dining and living room
[*] Upper floor: Child1, Child2, parents, bathroom
What we still lack is the puzzle piece for the transition in form and orientation of the house on the plot. A few thoughts, detached from all drafts: Naturally, the main garden would be the right part of the plot (south side), thus the arrangement of the children’s rooms would face southeast, bathroom and parents’ room would then align more according to the location of the wet cells? On the ground floor, ideally kitchen with access to the garden and short paths from the entrance. That would roughly correspond to a mirroring of the open space from the current draft and then rotated 90° in the UZS – whereas an L-shape for living room, kitchen, and dining area would also be possible, similar to the first draft.
Based on these thoughts @everyone (please feel free to correct if something is completely off here): What arrangement possibilities (form and orientation; also considering removing the pantry) arise considering the room and space requirements? Or can the current draft be redesigned to meet this?
The technical shafts seem aimless because unjustified in position and dimension, bulky placed in the room, and probably also without a clear idea of serviceability. Presumably, you have wishes that the planner has little idea of, and now he wants to give the installers at least generous space for their improvisations. That looks like an architect fresh from university or a general contractor drafter; both groups lack alarmingly and ultimately expensively the ability to bring the clients down to earth regarding budget and "only three-dimensional" space (which both require a relaxed attitude to compromises or at least Pareto optima). "What exactly is aimless here"? - well, both ends of the shafts (i.e. complete upper-lower floor pairs) could shed light [I am already getting stomach aches again from the mandated emoticon abstinence, some sentences require such valves, otherwise it’s hard for the writer to get over the Underberg].
Our current understanding, at least regarding draft #29 (image 1), is: The heating circuit valve (HKV) for the ventilation and underfloor heating is placed on each floor in the niche of the 24 cm wall facing the corridor. Space for a decentralized distribution manifold (UV) is also available if no central one is desired. From there, the underfloor heating is well reachable and can be laid for all rooms. If you now install at least two 160 mm spiral ducts for controlled residential ventilation, about four well-insulated 40 mm risers for ventilation and underfloor heating, one soil pipe, water, electricity, network, etc., the shaft fills quickly. But yes, the shaft here is already large relative to the house, whereby the size also strongly depends on the technical equipment. Serviceability is a good topic! Thanks for the hint. Accessibility in the other draft (ground floor attached here) I see as problematic, and heat emission into the pantry with reversed installation also. Suggestions and criticism are welcome.
In #17 I planned the ridge direction east - west. The orientation along the northern border had the advantage of having a lot of garden and roof area in the south.
That also appealed to us and was given to the architect as an incentive.
The bay windows and many chimneys also cost unnecessary money.
Only one chimney and one flue are planned. In the draft presented here only the recommended chimney and chimney position are additionally shown.
3 m clear height as well.
The idea behind it was: In the realization of the controlled residential ventilation, it is, according to first rough calculations, cheaper to build one brick higher (including what follows) than to have 75 mm ventilation pipes in the element ceiling with increased steel and concrete requirements and other technical execution.