Gerichtsdiener
2022-08-14 09:47:26
- #1
First of all: I basically think the house design is really awesome. A very exciting house that matches our taste 100%.
In medias res:
1)
Just briefly touching on the annoying budget question: You wrote that you have the feeling that the living feeling you are aiming for could be achieved with fewer square meters. Regarding the ground floor, I share the same opinion. Do you really want to have a room of >80 sqm that serves for everything? Have you ever stood in such a room?
I was recently at a good friend’s house; they attached an all-purpose room to an existing house, 5m up to the peak ceiling, total 55 sqm. It was already huge, very impressive in effect, but it also echoed extremely. The room was kitchen, dining room, living room, reading corner, and play area for the little daughter all in one. I would not have liked to imagine it any bigger, because then there would simply be a lot of free space between the areas without real added value.
Therefore, I would definitely start with the question of whether the floor area could not be reduced toward 160 sqm – especially at the end of your 50s without children, you don’t really need >200 sqm on 3 levels, right?
2)
That you want to take the view on the top level and use the basement for sauna, fitness, office, guests, etc. makes sense to me. However – and here I agree with some others – 3 levels with an elevator are not exactly what comes to mind first regarding accessibility. Additionally, it makes the construction significantly more expensive than 2 levels without an elevator. You now write that Plan A is precisely the 3 levels, and I can understand that very well. In my opinion, you should be open with the architect about whether the rooms and floor area can be arranged so that it stays at 2 levels. I have a particular house layout from England in my mind.
3)
Again briefly touching on the annoying € question: You wrote that you want to save money on some decisions. I can understand that too; we have that in mind as well. May I ask to what extent you are willing? Is it initially just about the effect of the room and the kitchen may come from Ikea, sanitary furniture cheap from the hardware store, walls painted yourself, floors, etc. from the cheapest shelf? I mean: If you tend toward the cheapest with every material decision, I could even imagine that you could realize 160-200 sqm for 600k + 200k buffer. But if I were you, I would reflect on how much compromise I really want to make “after the shell construction”?
4)
I don’t dare to make concrete suggestions for changing the floor plan because you have, in my opinion, a good architect who has put thought into the design. I also don’t know exactly what you discussed with him and what guidelines you set.
But what struck me – like many others – immediately: The bathrooms are a joke for the house. And considering that you are in your late 50s and presumably don’t want to live there for only the next 10 years, even more so. The WCs are each small chambers where I would not feel comfortable even in my early 30s. I don’t want to imagine having to use them with a walking disability, walker, or something similar. In my opinion, if you keep “living in old age” in mind, the bathrooms should be planned generously, i.e. one bath per level – for you, the basement can probably be planned somewhat smaller.
The doors must be 1m wide, the showers generous, enough room to manoeuvre within the bathroom. A bathtub is, in my opinion, if no children are pending, a question of want, not of must.
All in all:
I would reconsider how much living space and how many floors I really want and how many compromises I am willing to make regarding material choices. Then I would approach the architect again and discuss openly whether the truly successful design is actually what makes sense for your situation. You have a good but unfortunately, by today’s standards, not an unbelievably good budget. You are in your late 50s and want to live there comfortably in old age.
I would therefore, in your situation, probably aim for a design that works with 2 stories without an elevator but offers larger bathrooms and overall significantly reduces the living area, but design-wise still offers what you like about the first design. The extraordinary.
In medias res:
1)
Just briefly touching on the annoying budget question: You wrote that you have the feeling that the living feeling you are aiming for could be achieved with fewer square meters. Regarding the ground floor, I share the same opinion. Do you really want to have a room of >80 sqm that serves for everything? Have you ever stood in such a room?
I was recently at a good friend’s house; they attached an all-purpose room to an existing house, 5m up to the peak ceiling, total 55 sqm. It was already huge, very impressive in effect, but it also echoed extremely. The room was kitchen, dining room, living room, reading corner, and play area for the little daughter all in one. I would not have liked to imagine it any bigger, because then there would simply be a lot of free space between the areas without real added value.
Therefore, I would definitely start with the question of whether the floor area could not be reduced toward 160 sqm – especially at the end of your 50s without children, you don’t really need >200 sqm on 3 levels, right?
2)
That you want to take the view on the top level and use the basement for sauna, fitness, office, guests, etc. makes sense to me. However – and here I agree with some others – 3 levels with an elevator are not exactly what comes to mind first regarding accessibility. Additionally, it makes the construction significantly more expensive than 2 levels without an elevator. You now write that Plan A is precisely the 3 levels, and I can understand that very well. In my opinion, you should be open with the architect about whether the rooms and floor area can be arranged so that it stays at 2 levels. I have a particular house layout from England in my mind.
3)
Again briefly touching on the annoying € question: You wrote that you want to save money on some decisions. I can understand that too; we have that in mind as well. May I ask to what extent you are willing? Is it initially just about the effect of the room and the kitchen may come from Ikea, sanitary furniture cheap from the hardware store, walls painted yourself, floors, etc. from the cheapest shelf? I mean: If you tend toward the cheapest with every material decision, I could even imagine that you could realize 160-200 sqm for 600k + 200k buffer. But if I were you, I would reflect on how much compromise I really want to make “after the shell construction”?
4)
I don’t dare to make concrete suggestions for changing the floor plan because you have, in my opinion, a good architect who has put thought into the design. I also don’t know exactly what you discussed with him and what guidelines you set.
But what struck me – like many others – immediately: The bathrooms are a joke for the house. And considering that you are in your late 50s and presumably don’t want to live there for only the next 10 years, even more so. The WCs are each small chambers where I would not feel comfortable even in my early 30s. I don’t want to imagine having to use them with a walking disability, walker, or something similar. In my opinion, if you keep “living in old age” in mind, the bathrooms should be planned generously, i.e. one bath per level – for you, the basement can probably be planned somewhat smaller.
The doors must be 1m wide, the showers generous, enough room to manoeuvre within the bathroom. A bathtub is, in my opinion, if no children are pending, a question of want, not of must.
All in all:
I would reconsider how much living space and how many floors I really want and how many compromises I am willing to make regarding material choices. Then I would approach the architect again and discuss openly whether the truly successful design is actually what makes sense for your situation. You have a good but unfortunately, by today’s standards, not an unbelievably good budget. You are in your late 50s and want to live there comfortably in old age.
I would therefore, in your situation, probably aim for a design that works with 2 stories without an elevator but offers larger bathrooms and overall significantly reduces the living area, but design-wise still offers what you like about the first design. The extraordinary.