Floor plan feedback single-family house for 4-5 people, 200 sqm on a 500 sqm plot in BW

A gable roof with a pitch of "about 50°" must be built.

38 and "about 50" is however not only a significant difference as a clothing size.

I think once we have the calculator result, we will have to negotiate hard over the first round of shrinkage.

Wrong order: cost verification is already done with the preliminary design (>decision point in the >proofing). Whoever marches all the way through to service phase 3 or even 4 has way too much money.

The full basement is actually still up for debate. We could certainly manage with a partial basement. The planner said if you remove half you can definitely save €50,000.

If the dashed line is the current terrain, then I don’t see a basement here at all. Do I really have to translate the 11ant >basement rule into DaF first?

Thinking out loud: leaving out the basement means. Technology, storage and hobby room have to go upstairs. Also, we have to buy fill material, because the basement hole is already there.

Draw the existing basement once - how dilapidated is it really?

Initial offers for the demolition assume 30,000 EUR all-in demolition costs. The money is already reserved and not included in the building budget.

How many gods do you pray to that this will be enough?

EDIT: What could also be an idea is to integrate the garage roof or a part of it as a balcony. If that is even allowed under building regulations.

That is a phase 1 service question!

I am of the opinion that every euro well invested in the planning phase saves you tenfold later on.

Maybe you should tell yourself about this opinion (and kindly recommend it for implementation).

Small input for the basement consideration: we had a similar situation in the planning - 2 full floors + attic and a basement underneath. Since that is quite a big deal in terms of square meters and €, we started to shorten the house, make it narrower here, etc. etc., but it was a hopeless situation to mutilate the nice functional floor plan because of the basement. Then we thought about what we actually need the basement with 4 rooms for - technology and storage. We don’t have any underground hobbies. - Expensive storage space. Then we threw out the basement, left the above-ground floors in their perfect size, even added something for technology/utility room and storage. We celebrate this decision every day, that we don’t have a basement hole under our stairs that just clutters, is dark, and also requires maintenance/cleaning etc. Laundry is washed on the ground floor with the technology and we have a nice, livable closet and storage room on the upper floor, without mustiness or anything... That was one of the good decisions in our planning. Partial basements can be forgotten from our point of view, what you save on materials there you have to spend again elsewhere for any kind of supports, foundation, etc. And the hole during the deep construction is initially just as big as for a full basement. You also need the stairs just the same, briefly, if the basement is half as big you don’t save half the costs. My general contractor even said he can gladly reduce the basement for me but the price stays the same.... GD

Then we got rid of the basement, left the above-ground floors in their perfect size, even added something for the technology/utility room and storage.

I am getting more and more curious about your house!

From our point of view, you can forget about a partial basement; what you save on materials there you have to spend again elsewhere on some kind of supports, foundation, etc. [...] You need a staircase just the same, briefly, if the basement is half as big you don’t save half the costs.

No, only about 30% – see also: "Teilkeller: Die Lösung zwischen Ja und Nein?".

Good morning,

Wow, a lot to answer. First of all, thank you very much for the valuable hints.

I would also rather make a small shower bath out of the master bathroom. The family bathroom is on the children’s floor.

We will take a look at that. The space gain in the attic would be nice. On the other hand, we have already somewhat fallen in love with this feel-good oasis. And isn’t it said that you should first plan what you want and then start cutting back according to the budget? At least that’s what I heard in the video from Mr. Zink (linked as a second opinion on the 11ants page regarding the basement rule).

The cabinets in the attic could be well integrated into the roof space at the back, so that behind the two-meter height on the floor there is still considerable storage space. As mentioned above, open the dressing room from the hallway.

You mean here to convert the sloping roof areas where you can no longer stand into cabinets? That is exactly our plan. We even considered placing the bed on the gable side under the window.

At the children’s floor, there is nothing to change at first. There is still an additional workspace or play area on the gallery. Whether you put a TV for the kids there or a craft desk, at least there is still room to unfold.

Also our plan: a play corner, a scratching post for the cats, etc...

What I actually find worth reconsidering is (a) the exterior look, because it looks like a cheap multi-family house. I would anyway suggest windows with sills for the children’s rooms, maybe double-winged with transoms, and also another stairwell lighting to keep a charm that fits such a house shape. The Dutch build this charm with this roof pitch.

Ok, that’s already the second comment about the exterior look. Do you have a keyword or an example picture for me on how to do it? I gather that the geometry of the house is not the problem, but rather the look created by the windows. In the end, there are also too many floor-to-ceiling window elements for our taste. I tend strongly to replace some with windows with sills (children’s rooms, living room on the south side, kitchen). In the attic, I find the windows quite reasonable because there you only have one window. But maybe two wide sill windows would also fit there. My biggest concern there is that the rooms will end up being too dark. Of course, roof windows could also be used.

(b) the kitchen: it is far too small for 5 people. You can also see that on the little figure. One person fits there.
The entrance area is also too small for 4-5 people.
I think with a small extension and then a revision of the upper ground floor plan the house could gain—and possibly without a basement.
By the way, I also see the main passage to the terrace rather in the kitchen.

Hmm yes, one could do a small extension at the kitchen leading to the garden. I will sketch that. This could be developed as a balcony at the upper floor and the balcony could extend along the building side from the south end to the north end. With a 1 to 2 m extension, the kitchen could easily be extended by 5 to 10 sqm and would become less narrow. We are still considering whether we really want the pantry or prefer to invest the space into the kitchen. It would still remain a narrow room, which would probably benefit from better side length proportions.

To eliminate the basement, I need about 15 sqm of utility room on the ground floor plus storage space on the ground and upper floors and the hobby room on the upper floor. Here, one could extend the rear extension (2 m) upwards. That would generate about 25 sqm; additionally, the house could be extended by 1 m directly on the garage side. That would generate another 30 sqm. 55 sqm in total. That would be 15 sqm utility room, 10 sqm added to the kitchen, and then 15 sqm each for hobby and storage rooms. Could work. Am I on the right track or did I misunderstand that?

38 and "about 50" is not just a considerable difference in clothing size.

Hmm, I have to ask the planner again here. He initially planned a house with 38° and went to 45° for the second draft. But it still says 38°, but should be 45°. Maybe a typo. We already wanted a steeper roof to have more light height > 2 m in the attic.

If the dashed line is the current terrain, then I see no basement here at all. Do I really have to translate the 11ant > basement rule into German first?

The dashed line is the terrain. I have also read your website intensively and of course did not understand everything and internalize even less. As with me, one does not deal with this every day. We are faced with the decision: basement and smaller house, or no basement and bigger house. Purely economically, according to your basement rule (if I understand it correctly), it would be sensible to choose the second option here. However, the plot is not so generous and we wish for a lot of open space. In the end, the assessment leans toward a basement (=more space but also somewhat more expensive). But it might be worth revisiting.

Draw the existing basement once—how dilapidated is it really?

See the attached screenshots and photos. Thank you also for this question: It made me rethink the basement. As I understand it now, the new basement would be almost completely below the level of the old basement. According to the 11ant basement rule, a basement would not be reasonable here. At least not economically. Let’s see what wins here: the desire for a basement or for a bigger house. I have the impression that it would also be expensive to keep the old basement, especially since it is quite high and presumably you cannot realize two full floors plus a steep gable roof on top without greatly exceeding the neighboring buildings.

How many gods are you praying to that this will suffice?

Our god here is the boss of the local demolition company who walked through the building with me and raved about how easy it is. He sent me an offer for €30,000 for site setup, demolition down to the underside of the foundation, disposal, and gutting. The property will be delivered leveled. Fill material would be billed separately. The disconnection of power has to be provided by the builder (here indeed an additional €2,500 comes in (an offer from the network operator including civil engineering is also available).

This is a phase 1 question!

Admittedly, that probably is. Especially in forum discussions, you sometimes jump between questions of various phases.

I am getting more and more curious about your house!

Me too . Are the plans available to see somewhere, could you upload a sketch maybe?

Overall, one can say that we have already fallen in love with the basement because it simply leaves more space on the property (= smaller house). But I also see that the ground floor is quite cramped. Small hallway, small storage, small WC (which is sufficient), small kitchen whether with or without pantry. We like the upper and attic floors in principle (aside from small details to optimize).

Photos of the old house and photos of the basement: (the small site plan is 1:500)

[ATTACH width="349px" alt="Alt1.png"]92180[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="Alt2.png"]92181[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="EG_alt.png"]92182[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="Keller_alt.png"]92183[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH width="346px" alt="Lageplan1z500.png"]92184[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="20250620_092709.jpg"]92185[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="20250620_092922.jpg"]92186[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="20250620_092642.jpg"]92187[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="20250620_092841.jpg"]92188[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH alt="20250620_092847.jpg"]92189[/ATTACH]

And doesn’t one say that you should first plan what you want and then start cutting according to the budget? At least, that’s what I heard in Mr. Zink’s video (linked on 11ants page as a second opinion on the basement rule).

Secondly, I would not have linked colleague Zink if he blew into the same horn as I do, merely in Bavarian dialect. Rather, deliberately as insight into differently oriented and partly divergent recommendations and experiences of another expert.
And first of all, the (if you closely follow my advice, avoidable!) popular practice of budget-indexed successive shrinking is by far the most significant economic reason why the setting of the course (including dimension calibration) belongs in the dough resting phase: so that a shrinking process is not first carried out in the expensive later design phases!

I have also already read your website intensively and of course haven’t understood everything and internalized even less. Since, like me, I don’t deal with it every day. We are facing the decision here: basement and smaller house, or no basement and bigger house. Purely economically, according to your basement rule (if I understand it correctly), it would be sensible here to choose the second variant. However, the plot is not that generous and we want a lot of open space. In the end, the balance tipped towards the basement (= more space but also somewhat more expensive). However, it might be worth revisiting that.

The basement rule has no second variant, which one would that be?
Economically (and the rule is intended for nothing else, I myself am subjectively a keeper of excess), the basement rule comes to the conclusion here that a basement on this plot is a luxury. However, this relates to the raw plot; in the concrete case, I recommend a benevolent examination of retaining the existing basement!
Anyone who reads my website intensively should actually notice that the comment function is available at the bottom of each post for readers’ questions (and by the way, the editorial hotline at landline rates is also mentioned at the top of the page).

Thanks also for this question: it makes me reconsider the basement. As I understand it now, the new basement would be almost completely below the level of the old basement. According to 11ant’s basement rule, no basement would even be an option here. At least economically not. Let’s see what wins here: basement wish or the bigger house.
I have the impression it would also be expensive to retain the old basement, especially since it naturally lies quite high and one probably cannot realize 2 full floors plus a steep gable roof on top without projecting far above the neighboring buildings.

The existing basement is, contemporarily, not a fully recessed basement, which confers a base to the house accordingly. If I remember correctly, we are talking here about a §34 plot – the existing building cubature should therefore be a strong benchmark for the possible framework.

Admittedly, that’s probably it. Especially in forum discussions one probably jumps back and forth between the questions of the different performance phases.

I meant that the question of the building configuration should have been discussed with the planner before he galloped off with the drawings!
In the performance phases of module B, the planner’s meter ticks noticeably faster; therefore, the essentials must be critically clarified before the expensive phases come!

Ok, already the second comment on the exterior appearance. Do you have a search term for me or an example picture of how one would do it? I gather the geometry of the house isn’t the problem but rather the appearance created by the windows. In the end, we also find that there are too many floor-to-ceiling window elements.

Too many floor-to-ceiling elements are a central feature of the current fashion: designing as if you had won the lottery. On the garden floor, I always foresee only two exits, namely to the terrace and from the stove to the herb bed. On the levels requiring fall protection, every floor-to-ceiling window is (decadent) luxury – that’s exactly why they are overdosed in the “Anstatt” villas. A “multifamily house look” presumably means when the façade gives the impression that the stacked floors have the same room layout. I see this neutrally, i.e., as a matter of taste and not as a flaw. An appearance of cheapness can basically always be avoided in the finish.