Floor plan design - two options - single-family house 166 sqm

Hello everyone,

after intensive consideration of our ideas and our space program, we have found an architect who has implemented these ideas for us. She has created two variants and we are still unsure whether these are optimal. We hope for your input!

Bebauungsplan/Einschränkungen
Plot size: 554 sqm
Slope: slight slope, surveying has not yet been carried out
Site coverage ratio: 0.4
Floor area ratio: 0.6
Building window, building line and boundary: see attached excerpt of the development plan: A building boundary is present on the north and west sides. Garage may only be built on the building boundary, carport may also be built on the property boundary. Therefore our solution with a carport/garage combination
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 full floors
Roof shape: gable roof
Style: -
Orientation:
Maximum heights/limits: max. wall height 6.50 m, max. ridge height 9 m
Further specifications: garage exit <-> street >6 m

Owners’ requirements
Style, roof shape, building type: North American or Swedish house type, muntin windows, wooden facade, etc.
Basement, floors: basement plus two full floors
Number of persons, age: 2 adults, currently 2 children, planned total 3
Space requirement on ground and upper floor: 160-170 sqm
Office: wife is a teacher, so a study room is planned
Guests per year: few to none
Open or closed architecture: open living-dining area, but separated from hallway and stairs
Conservative or modern construction:
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes
Number of dining seats: 5-8
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo wall:
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: a combination is planned due to development plan requirements
Utility garden, greenhouse
Additional wishes/particularities/daily routine, gladly also reasons why this or that should or should not be

House design
Who created the design: architect
What do you particularly like? Why? All rooms have been arranged as we wished, see below.
What do you not like? Why? Feels like a smaller living/dining area, question whether entrance area is too narrow, directly with the stairs by the door
Price estimate according to architect/planner: no price estimate given
Personal price limit for the house, incl. equipment: approx. €620,000 with basement
Preferred heating technology: heat pump

If you have to do without, which details/extensions
-can you do without:
-can you not do without:
--> All rooms are needed

Why has the design turned out as it is now? For example
We had clear ideas: study and kitchen in the east, open living-dining area, airlock to the garage, shower toilet on the ground floor; 3 children's rooms, bedroom in the east, entrance in the middle, symmetrical facade appearance with veranda, terrace covered with roof overhang in the east and south
The architect implemented this accordingly

What is the most important/basic question regarding the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?

Which variant would you prefer? Would you rather have more space in the entrance area like in variant 2 or more space in the dining area like in variant 3? Which solution would you prefer upstairs?

What other ideas and suggestions for improvement do you have?

Thank you very much!
Markus

I consider some rooms suboptimal. Unfortunately, the internal dimensions are missing. But you can relate the square meters to the room measurements. Obviously, the kitchen doesn't work like this: too narrow, island too far away, where will the tall cabinets go? What corridor dimensions does the bedroom have? The walk-in closet also seems too narrow. The BD could become too tight with an extra-wide shower and accent bathtub. All of this doesn't surprise me, because nothing optimal has ever been implemented in these symmetrical houses with bay windows. You basically have to adopt the scheme dictated by the house dimensions and the bay window. Statics probably require following the grid. 220 sqm plus basement -> more than 620,000. With all the outer frills on the facade -> even more.

Do I see it correctly that you always have to go around the stairs to get to the bathroom on the upper floor????
:D
I would take a look at the floor plans of American houses of this type. My grandparents' house was a classic neo-Gothic house with a front veranda and a centrally located entrance. But the floor plan was completely different.

Do I see it correctly that you always have to go around the stairs to get to the bathroom on the upper floor??? :D

Exactly: I forgot that in my list. It’s too long for us, isn’t it, ? :)

Exactly: I forgot that in my list. We think it's too long, or ? :)

As a mother, I have only one word to say: Norovirus.

Do I see it correctly that you always have to go around the stairs to get to the bathroom on the upper floor??? :D

Yes, and to get to the living room, you even have to go down the stairs :D ...seriously: we are aware of that, the alternative would be V3, meaning the children's rooms in the south, pushing the bedroom into the bathroom, and moving the bathroom over. But that would mean the bedroom is only 14 sqm and no dressing room would be possible, which means wardrobes in the bedroom and not separate. According to the architect, this cannot be solved differently due to the stairs and the accesses... Or do you still have ideas?

I consider some rooms not optimal. Unfortunately, the interior dimensions are missing. But you can relate the sqm to the room measurements. Obviously, the kitchen doesn’t work like this: too narrow, island too far away, where will the tall cabinets go? What are the corridor dimensions of the bedroom? Dressing room also seems too narrow. The bathroom could become too tight with an oversized shower and accent bathtub. None of this surprises me, as nothing optimal has ever been implemented from these symmetrical houses with bay windows. You basically have to adopt the scheme dictated by the house dimensions and the bay window. Statics probably require using the grid. 220 sqm plus basement -> more than 620,000. With all the outer frills on the facade -> even more.

It is 166 sqm plus basement, not 220. I think I will have the architect draw in the measurements to see the corridor widths and whether the widths are sufficient. Also in the dressing room. Thanks for the hint. The distance between the cooking island and the countertop in the kitchen is too large, that's true. I will take another look at it. You can also see it at the terrace door. Thanks for that too... We are currently living in a small apartment, do you think the 45 sqm living/dining/cooking area is sufficient? It's always hard to imagine. Thanks!