Floor plan of a 166 sqm city villa with two full floors, 655 sqm plot

, unfortunately I don’t understand a thing about your post, but I still thank you for your information. I will look into the topic and also bring it up again with the architect.

a would have been part of my customer expectation in your position, given the target size of 165/166 sqm, to be pointed out that 160 sqm is a limit in a current funding program.

Which funding program are you talking about? The KfW programs are either not applicable to us or actually not worthwhile because the savings don’t justify the effort. As far as I know, there are no other funding programs here in Saxony-Anhalt. Thanks again for the overview of the plans!

Thanks for your thoughts!

We find the stair direction better not only because of the dirt at the entrance but also more practical because you simply go up and down from the living room more often than from the front door. It also looks nicer visually when you look through the glass door from the open space. But you are absolutely right about the door; we are actually only considering making the right wing accessible or maybe choosing a sliding door solution. The hallway is actually a bit long, but shortening it wouldn’t help much. We like, on one hand, that it somewhat "encloses" the kitchen area on the right and that the TV/projector wall on the left is long enough. If you shorten that, unfortunately it won’t work anymore. Our current idea would therefore actually be a wider bay window on the terrace side. That would make the open space more generous and reduce the bottleneck at the door.

The carport is indeed drawn poorly in the site plan. It should of course be directly attached to the house. We won’t lose any light there anyway since the carport is on the north side and we don’t have any windows there on the ground floor. I think you got a bit confused with the directions while reading the plan. The bathroom in the south might really be a bit pointless, but unfortunately, I don’t see a better place.

Regarding the arrangement of the rooms:
- The technical room must be at the top left because of the location of the house connections. I also find that good because it’s on the northeast side anyway.
- We would like the office on the east side because of the morning light, and we also like the corner window there.
- We want the kitchen to have an exit to the terrace and also be on the south side so it gets a lot of light. During the day, that is the most frequent place for us with the dining table.
- The living room corner can be somewhat shaded since you’re only disturbed by the sun there anyway, and we only spend time there in the evening. It was important to us to have the view outside to the west there.
- That basically leaves only the space for the bathroom, where it is now. It also has the advantage that you don’t have to go through the dirty area when you want to use the toilet.

Those were our ideas in this regard. It would of course be great if the floor plan can be optimized and these wishes can still somehow be fulfilled.

Regarding the upper floor:
Yes, you’re right about the storage room. It’s really very small. I just thought, better a small room for cleaning supplies, toilet paper, and vacuum cleaner than no room at all? Even here, I’m grateful for any optimization ideas!
And yes, the shower is dark. Maybe instead of the north window by the toilet, plan a narrow one by the shower that is frosted?

Thank you all very much!

Best regards

Which funding program are you talking about there? The KfW programs are either not applicable to any of us or actually not worthwhile, because the savings are not worth the effort. As far as I know, there are no other funding programs here in Saxony-Anhalt.

Did the architect know that it is not relevant in your case?
We are talking here about many planning phases over several months, during which guidelines of funding programs can also change. You can find several threads here where prospective builders had put their plans on hold when the funds for KfW55 were reported to be prematurely depleted – some of them can now participate in a sustainability-focused funding program (but only if their household income fits and they do not exceed the 160 sqm cap). Architects should keep such news in mind and discuss it with their building couples. If they then say it is not significant for them, fine. But I find it important that the professional raises the issue first (in my case, “my” Susanne does that).

@11ant, I unfortunately don’t understand a word of your post, but thank you anyway for your information. I will deal with the topic and bring it up again with the architect. [...] Thanks also again for the overview of the plans!

Your thanks out of politeness is nice but useless if my information is not. I will try to explain it to you again with illustrations, below shown using the example of the upper floor in the professional drawing version, and repeat the content of my text in “plain language”:

1. The stone formats are derived from the idea of subdividing the unit “1.00 meter” into eight equally long steps. Therefore, architects should not be so arrogant academics as to not care at all about the practical work of the masons. Whenever the poor masons have to carry the stones to the saw, distortions in the joint rhythm also arise (and mortar is smeared into the saw cuts of the stones, which actually is not intended in the head joints). Afterwards, the wall has “botched spots” as marks of Cain that the architect is a sloppy rascal. Although a dozen such marks of Cain do not yet bring a house to collapse, it does weaken the stability of the masonry bond. Therefore, architects should think in full eighth-meter steps to avoid unnecessary sawing of stones that are actually perfectly tuned to this rhythm.
2. Stones are laid together so that the joints lie in the middle of the stone courses above or below, with the courses overlapping each other mutually in a stable bond called the “header bond measurement.” In earlier times, masons alternated between stones lying lengthwise (called stretchers, because the wall runs in this direction) and in the next layer stones lying crosswise (so they connect the parallel stretchers of the neighboring course, hence called headers). Today’s stone formats summarize a masonry piece in one stone that corresponds to a whole block of their small-format colleagues. Walls with thicknesses up to 24 cm (including 17.5 cm) are built purely as stretcher bonds, whose individual stones, including the head joint (= joint between stones in the same course, regularly “dry”, i.e., mortar-free today), are usually 50 cm long. Walls with thicknesses of 30, 36.5, or 42.5 cm, on the other hand, are commonly built today in pure header bonds, where the stones including the head joint are 25 cm wide. Only the bed joints, where the stone courses lie on each other, are regularly mortared. According to the masonry bond (monolithic as a whole wall in header bond or in the ETICS as a constructive wall shell in stretcher bond), it follows the maxim “the architect should think as the mason works,” meaning to think in integer (or even even-numbered) multiples of an eighth meter, thus positioning walls and masonry piece lengths on a grid of one or even double eighth meter (12.5 or 25 cm) on virtual lines.
3. The masons align the stones by placing their outward-facing edges against a guide string. Walls always start at the outside corners, layer by layer first the outer walls and the load-bearing inner walls. Non-load-bearing inner walls as well as the insulation layer of an ETICS follow only in later work steps. Therefore, starting points for the virtual grid lines are best the outer edges of the outer walls, which lie exactly on the guide string. In the sense of avoiding stone sawing as much as possible, these edges of the load-bearing inner walls stand 12.5 cm steps behind towards the house center. Wall 1 lays out its offset to the further course as wall 1a between bedroom and storage room ideally also by 12.5 / 25 / 37.5 ... cm. Since its thickness of 17.5 cm is not one or two but one and a half steps, only its edge facing either the outer wall or the house center can lie on a grid line. This reinforces the importance of a rule about which wall side in such doubtful cases is decisive – designated by me as the master edge. The walls between walk-in closet and bathroom or bedroom and between office and children’s room are built here but are non-load-bearing and therefore can be positioned freely regardless of their thickness.

By the way, some dimensions here do not match mathematically; walls 1 and 1a are shown in the drawing with an offset probably of one eighth-meter step but run continuously in a straight line both at 3.70 m behind the interior edge of the outer wall according to the dimension specifications. Starting from a 24 cm thick structural masonry shell, that would be 3.94 m (correct would be 4.00 or 3.875 m).

4. The above explanations apply correspondingly to the wall sections. For example, 2.19 m (at the bathroom) equals 4.38 stones (better 4.5 = 2.25 or 4.25 = 2.125 m), 1.91 m (at the office) equals 3.82 stones (better 4 = 2.00 or 3.75 = 1.875 m), and so on. As said, the house will not collapse at this dosage, but this “mason’s torture” has no benefit for anyone.

Regarding all these rules, your architect may have a different opinion (and hopefully also a convincing justification for it). The primary important thing here is that both of you do not continue planning past each other, so agree on such rules. Even if you are the builder and thus have priority, you should not try to lecture her or impose the viewpoint of an old white man / yellow 11ant on her. It is more important that she and “her” masons harmonize on this question. Therefore, let her choose the rules and then observe them in your further planning steps. Possibly this paragraph will again be deformed by foolish hands – sometimes you have to be quick to have read my words before they are botched.

You are not supposed to learn here to worship my wisdom but for your benefit. Therefore, please ask if I have not yet succeeded in making something understandable to you. Now to the drawing:

Thanks for the information. I have now understood the topic. The plan probably goes to the specialist planner after the draft planning, who then creates the execution drawings, formwork, and reinforcement plans. As far as I understand, they will then pay attention to these points, but I will continue to inquire.

Back to the draft again. Attached is a new draft from the architect. What do you think of the staircase? According to the plan, it is apparently 3.25m long and the floor height is 2.50m. Including ceiling height, the staircase has to overcome a height of 2.84m. According to the construction company, they always use these dimensions, but it seems a bit steep to me. What do you think?

Due to the somewhat tight living space, I had the idea to sacrifice the bay window at the entrance and instead move the wall to the terrace outward and equip it with a lift-and-slide door. That would be an additional cost, but maybe it would be worth it. What do you think?

Best regards

Thanks @11ant for the information. I now understand the topic. After the design planning, the plan probably goes to the specialist planner, who then creates the execution drawings, formwork, and reinforcement plans. As far as I understand, they will pay attention to these points, but I will continue to inquire.

I do not share your hope. He is not paid as a critic and does not have a checking assignment, only an implementation assignment. Experience says he will have the kitchen window nailed exactly as you have drawn it against the faucet of the sink 1:1. And he will not calculate how many steps would make the staircase more comfortable to climb.

Due to the somewhat cramped living space, I had the idea again to sacrifice the bay window at the entrance and instead move the wall to the terrace outward and equip it with a lift-and-slide door. That would be an extra charge again, but maybe it would be worth it. What do you think?

What we think about it we have written a countless number of times in other threads: 2. the porch roof helps you at the front door, but not the "bay window"; 1. the "bay window" costs a multiple of building the same additional square meters as a continuous increase of the house depth. Exactly how many times depends also on whether the roof should cover the projection. And at least from me you can have read 3. several times that I give the lift-and-slide door only a handful of years until it will rightly go out of fashion. More price without more benefit. These things only exist because half a century ago they belonged to the standard in upper-class houses. Today, straight one-flight staircases, floor-to-ceiling windows in overdose, and corner windows as a cheeky gimmick belong to social villa construction.

(M)y personal advice you probably will not need; your draft has few pain points but rather generally needs an eye on it (maybe like another OP was recommended by Katja.

I would advise you to find a trusted person with experience who advises you during construction.

In my waiting room, there are certainly prospective builders with more professional needs for action, and you now know in what way I recommend sharpening your view, which you can also implement yourself.

Experience says he will have the kitchen window hammered 1:1 exactly as you drew it against the sink faucet. And he will also not calculate how many steps would make the staircase more comfortable to climb.

The kitchen window has a fixed element at the lower section (see south view) and therefore does not get hammered against the faucet, unless we install a very tall faucet there. (Just a little joke)
The reason I ask about the staircase is exactly for this reason. But today I climbed a staircase with almost the same dimensions at friends’ place and found it okay.

What we think about it, we have already written many dozens of times in other threads: 2. the canopy helps you at the front door, but the "bay window" does not; 1. the "bay window" costs a multiple of that, to build the same additional square meters as a continuous extension of the house depth. Exactly how many times more depends also on whether the roof should cover the projection. And at least from me you can have read several times already that I only give the lifting sliding door a handful of years more until it will rightly go out of fashion. More price without more benefit. These things only exist because half a century ago they were standard in upper-class houses. Today, straight single-flight staircases, floor-to-ceiling windows in overdose, and corner windows as a cheeky feature belong to social villa construction.

Makes a lot of sense, thank you very much for your input. We are now planning a canopy in front of the entrance and the wall corners will be removed. The lifting sliding door is probably also rejected. Instead, there will be a fixed element and a patio door.
A continuous extension of the house depth would of course be great, but the problem is always that it would then have to happen on both floors and then we would soon be over 170 sqm. But building a bay window in the open-plan living area in the width I have in mind is probably really extremely expensive, because then the weight of the upper floor would have to be supported throughout. Everything is difficult...

The kitchen window has a fixed element in the lower area (see south view) and therefore does not hit the faucet, unless we install an extremely tall tap there. (Just kidding)

Haha, funny – in the floor plan you explicitly drew it as if the opening angle of the window is limited.