Floor plan draft for a 220m² single-family house

Wow! Over 280 entries to the initial question asked. The project is ambitious and equipped with a sufficient budget. Two architects are/were already involved. The contributions are becoming more surreal. What is wrong with this?

My experience with design approaches that are worked on over and over again, with ever more microscopic changes, is that these approaches are fundamentally not coherent. The basic idea is not the right one or details are supposed to be integrated at any cost, which, however, do not fit together in the specific context. It might be time for a "tabula rasa".

It might be time for a "tabula rasa".

What does that mean specifically?

At least we have the conclusion that we like the most recently posted room plan. The terrace, balcony, etc. would need to be adjusted to the new "dining corner," and the topic of outdoor design needs to be clarified. If the bay window is to be removed, a rough new plan would be necessary, but I think the room layout can still be used. Even if the area should somewhat increase as a result, I could imagine that it would still not become more expensive since various corners/offsets, etc. would be eliminated. And above all, I could then be told from the outset what to pay attention to so that planning can be done without support beams. A kind of break-even point could be calculated, determining how large the span in a given design in the living area can be to do without support beams.

Even if the area should inflate a bit as a result, I could imagine that it still wouldn't become more expensive, since various corners / offsets etc. are eliminated.

That's how it is. Your offsets contain a lot of potential, the costs (in the sum of complicated wall connections, complicated wall-ceiling connections, extra insulation and sealing effort due to edges of walls and ceilings exposed by the offsets, structural engineering tricks due to loads not aligned vertically, etc., etc.) amount to as much as another basement (or in other words, like the house without these offsets but with 300 sqm).

And above all, I can be told from the start what to pay attention to so that planning without beams is possible.

In the meantime, I was briefly in my hobby lab and prepared something there. Actually only for analysis before I start tinkering, but also as if I had suspected you would ask this here by now:



I have taken one of the more recent designs from the ancestral line as an example and drawn the outlines of the upper floor into the ground floor.

This blue line represents the outer edge of the exterior wall of the corresponding upper floor – in the other versions, the incongruence of the two stories was not any better.

You can see on the left and right as well as on the street side on both sides of the bay window only the outer edges of the exterior walls of the upper floor lying over the inner edges of the walls of the ground floor. At both corners of the house entrance there are the two areas, totaling (!) one quarter of a square meter, where the upper floor exterior wall actually stands "structurally classic" over the ground floor exterior wall.

Every corner (per dimension) is a sensitive point. Not only can the structural engineer go on vacation twice this year (no Birgen Air, Egypt), but afterwards a family of building damage restorers has ensured their livelihood for several generations. This is a maximum of complications that one can build.

So, here I am again, with a little greeting from the witch's kitchen:


I have radically straightened the ground floor of the 213 sqm version (the one with the partition wall) – don’t worry, there will still be music added. The dashed line on the garden side shows how far the office protruded before (about an eighth of a meter less, but the shift to the foremost of the old front lines has gained many times over). I have looked for or created supports for the beams. Next to (and also at the edge between) the beams there is a suspended ceiling (drywall) for spotlights and also suitable to completely or partially hide a projector; the beams themselves will be completely concealed, and the corridor to the kitchen is elegantly stepped and blended over. The beams are red/dashed, the adjacent/suspended areas next to/between are highlighted in yellow.

I have not yet changed the width for this demonstration, but I would probably add at least half a meter (further details will become clear when translating to the upper floor). I have only slightly set back the garage for now and have not touched it otherwise.

That’s it for now to show that with a little goodwill and routine such a design can be saved.

This is roughly what it can look like when you start with construction and do the make-up last – not the other way around. First the section, then the curls.

It really gets exciting with the OG and whether it is possible to do without the bay window there.

If that succeeds, the hip roof is once again very much in the running.

It really gets exciting with the upper floor and whether it is possible to omit the bay window there.

Let's see when I manage to implement this, the current upper floor would fit (you can see this yourself by the blue line, the outlines are smaller). The bay window is gone, in #248 I pushed all the front facades forward to the bay window line.

If that succeeds, the hipped roof is back in the running.

I am rather envisioning a flat roof (i.e., with a touch of hipped roof, hehe). What do you keep talking about the hipped roof? — I had the impression so far that it couldn’t be "Bauhaus" enough for you? — is the hipped roof now your favorite? — that would rather be Frank Lloyd Wright, so far we have been on the wrong track.