This morning I thought: "
joker".
But the following I have to address quite openly: I asked for X. What can be read between the lines is this: Put more effort into it, you can’t afford it anyway, what have you done in all these years forum-wise and financially, do you even have the children yet?
That has nothing to do with my question.
With sample floor plans I only wanted to check whether the whole thing with 160 sqm is basically conceivable.
[...] you just completely misunderstand my question - and I didn’t expect anything at all. Just asked nicely.
You actually asked for "X" in the sense of unknown, because how your question was meant to be understood you have not yet made clear. And now, despite all the effort spent on you, it was only about the question whether 160 sqm are enough for five people? - the simple rule of three already tells you this: (you live on 64 sqm as a couple, divided by 2, multiplied by 5 gives: 160; so clearly yes!). Moreover, considering that the need even increases subproportionally to the number of residential area users, you can even tick a second box that you will be within the green zone. For all that "mimimi nobody understands me" - seriously now?
Since your question, I’d say, “allowed the interpretation that you had muted the local discussion in the intervening years,” I asked you for your information or self-assessment on how closely the discussions were followed. Much of what you have already been told here are literally "frequently given answers." And the question about K1 and K2 is really, I beg you, obvious when K3 is mentioned and we haven’t had contact for five years meantime. None of this is meant badly by anyone – we simply need facts to give more precise diagnoses than “42.” You gave the impression of not sitting quite securely in the saddle on the procedure of saddling the dead horse from behind.
In the meantime, I have been out hiking very calmingly –
which I deliberately inserted in between so as not to answer you with fresh anger – but now I want to even raise it to "
thankless joker*." The fact is: all fellow discussants earnestly endeavored to help you far better than your persistently unclear question meaning actually permits. In my case, this was done by pointing to a source of more detailed explanations of more clever approaches.
I do not criticize destructively, but the old man can deliver and lead by example. Just with the further search terms found at the linked spot in post #8 "House construction roadmap" and "Gerddieter", you (only here in the forum, exclusive of what further googling would bring you) already find free and with all stumbling blocks cleared out spoon-fed on only one Sunday the way into your (dream or at least example) house. To complain about friendly help is, to put it mildly, cheeky.
There is a rough wind blowing in the forum, it has always been like that here.
Far from it. The style of is the average tone in the green forum –
here only those who are “architects” in quotation marks or even militant overstepper-of-binding-measurements and botch-planning-specialists need duck before me.
When considering house sizes and the dependency on roofs, you come at a squaring of 10 x 10 to about 160 sqm, if it has an L-shape, accordingly longer wings (side lengths). That then becomes very sporty to almost impossible on common plots.
That’s right. Whoever supposedly has enough hunting luck themselves for sample floor plans (and just as soon as they have L-shapes, no longer at 160 sqm), they can actually notice quickly themselves: 160 sqm are either quickly reached in a compact form as two-storied or no longer require expansion reserves as an angled bungalow.
But starting with a sample floor plan, what is supposed to bring that? Sample floor plans are just doable, fit the average, but also changeable. But the plot, that is exactly not. Changeable.
Sample floor plans only work as long as you don’t change anything except for taste matters. As soon as you stuff an additional room into the room program specification sheet, their functionality bursts with a loud bang. For the OP this means: a sample floor plan with 160 sqm for five people works, however, a 160 sqm plan for four people will have to be extended to 180 sqm for a fifth person. Why the sample floor plans should serve was also asked by me but unfortunately remained secret :-(
*) You got the answers: 0. without a plot sample floor plans will not be testable as suitable; 1. yes, 160 sqm are enough for a family with three children; 2. that you have an empty set of convincing search results in this size AND form is due to the "and" – make it an "or" and your cornucopia will even overflow; 3. a stepwise portionable expansion reserve needs no polygonal floor plan; 4. in case you recognize your planning dead end: here you go, this is the track. These are five times more valuable answers than you could expect by prompting with your question – do you at least now recognize the inappropriateness of your reaction? (then get out of the sulking corner, let’s forget it, we’re happy to help here).