Floor plan of a 200m2 house, your assessment?

So lately I have just been passive and I am not exactly a floor plan expert. But the views have actually tempted me to follow this because I find the design really exciting.

But now let's get to the point, the budget will never ever be enough, absolutely not for the design shown. Not in any region of Germany and not in Austria either. This is not just about whether to choose laminate or real wood planks. What makes it impossible to scale the design with normal construction cost keys is the building volume. We have huge spans without supports. Projections, recesses. The wide window fronts. Whether fixed-glazed or not, that has to be solved structurally. Do you know how much steel and concrete will be embedded in the ceilings? All those balcony/terrace slabs have to be solved structurally and also thermally. Whoever has seen the price of a Schöck Isokorb knows what I mean. These may all be individual points, but if you add them up with the design shown, it will never ever work. Not even with a bit of extra buffer.

Sure, one could say now, wooden facade not necessary, no glass railing needed, and the terrace platform with V-steel columns in the garden floor is not necessary either, and the windows can be a bit smaller and don't have to be room height ( could maybe give a hint what such a Swiss company charges for such window fronts). Yes, all that can be discussed. But then I ask myself whether it still has anything to do with the original design?

In my opinion, it makes no sense at all to discuss the design because I cannot imagine that it will be implemented even close to this. My recommendation would be to get clear about the budget again and then use the design at most as an idea giver and start from scratch budget-wise.

I would be very interested to see how this continues and I would wish that the design is implemented as is (apart from adjustments) because I would be interested in the finished house. I have not read every single post here, but I really cannot imagine that it will be implemented like that.

But at the moment we want to follow Plan A. In other words, establish a floor plan that takes into account as much as possible of what is important to us (and affordable), omits everything that makes it unnecessarily expensive, and then put it out to tender. And depending on the offers, perhaps rethink this or that or move to Plan B. We certainly won't start building before that.

This is really not meant to be offensive, but it is a waste of time for those involved. As an architect, I would bill the planning phase twice.

You first budget and then put it out to tender. If after the tender you find out it is too expensive, then you planned incorrectly.

And to pick up on your quote "what makes it unnecessarily expensive," pretty much everything about your design are cost drivers.

- large window areas
- floor-to-ceiling windows
- wooden facade
- huge spans
- terraces/balconies
- glass balustrades
- open space/terrace "under the house"
- flat roof
- recesses
- projections
....

As an architect, I would bill the planning phase twice. And to pick up on your quote "what makes it unnecessarily expensive," pretty much everything in your design are cost drivers. - large window surfaces - floor-to-ceiling windows - wooden facade - huge spans - terraces/balconies - glass balustrade - open space/terrace "under the house" - flat roof - recesses - projections ....

I think it was wrong to post the animation because it is obviously misleading. My question was not "do you think we can implement exactly this design with our budget?" although this question seems to be more interesting for many here than my actual question "what about this SPACE CONCEPT makes sense, where are the flaws in reasoning, what should be planned differently?" I have received some very good hints on this and I am still happy if this is critically questioned. Thanks again for the persistence regarding the renunciation list ! :) Regarding your comments: This concept is the PREliminary design on the basis of which we will first develop the design planning. And yes, the architect has already invoiced and received her fee for this. Your listing mainly corresponds to this visual preliminary draft, which is indeed the basis for further planning but not the final result. - large window surfaces – we will define the number, type and size of the window surfaces once the room arrangement is fixed. In some areas, we may also use polycarbonate panels that let daylight in. - floor-to-ceiling windows – we want floor-to-ceiling windows but they do not have to be room-high. - wooden facade – definitely not. It will probably be a corrugated metal facade, which we find cool but surely not everyone’s cup of tea. - huge spans – there will not be any, we are aware it will need one or the other support. But that fits for us and can look interesting. - terraces/balconies – ultimately depend on the final house shape and will be finalized in the next step. - glass balustrade – there will be none, I also find it impractical. - recesses / projections – will be thoroughly reconsidered, also based on some suggestions here, and may be omitted. Again: what helps us in this current phase is dealing with how the rooms or stairs are arranged, what we may have overlooked, whether access to a room (like on the ground floor) is appropriate, right next to a stairway etc. Some have written that they cannot comment on the floor plan but want to address the budget. Please, dear posters, if you want to be helpful and say something about the budget, write me your experiences with (artistic/)creative and inexpensive solutions like corrugated metal facades (or alternatives), pure screed floors (or alternatives), concrete stairs etc. I would be very grateful for that. After I have written about 100 times that it does not help to read why exactly this design cannot be implemented with our budget, I hope for your understanding that I will not comment further on this kind of post.

may I ask how much the design cost? I really like it and would build exactly the same. After all, it has surely been your dream for 15 years and for that, you can work two years longer.

[

After feeling like I have written 100 times that it doesn't help to read why exactly this draft cannot be implemented within our budget, I hope for your understanding that I will not comment further on this type of post.

You can comment whatever you want or not.
The greatest effect of such a forum is when you encourage many forum participants to engage in your discussion.

Now there are, albeit (in a positive sense) few tireless ones like who dive into everything and keep evolving. But there is also a very large part who can contribute very meaningful posts, but are not willing to think seven steps ahead and invest time and passion in a draft that ultimately won’t be realized.
This may all mix with a few “nah-that's-not-going-to-work” users. Nevertheless, many here will not participate productively in your thread. If you don’t care, that’s fine, but most probably want to tell you here that it makes little sense to take a non-financeable preliminary draft and develop it further.
Why? Because downsizing in house construction doesn’t work.
What makes a draft good or not (especially in such a special case as your draft) is the "overall concept."
Now to say I leave this out and that out and make the staircase like this or there or in another place results in a totally different draft. That simply has nothing to do with the original idea anymore.
Therefore, I believe you will only be able to inspire a small part of the users here to follow your path. And probably the few only half-heartedly.

The way to the draft is usually the other way around. Budget - spatial concept to the architect -> first draft. Present this here and get very, very helpful input.

Again, you don’t have to do it this way. I believe that with your way, you will receive less productive feedback. That is my experience from my time here.

And put differently:

what about this SPATIAL CONCEPT is sensible, where are the errors in thinking, what should be planned differently?“

I don’t believe this question is sensible, since the spatial concept of this draft cannot be easily downsized.
]

The path to the draft is usually the other way around. Budget - spatial concept to the architect -> first draft. Present this one here and receive very, very helpful input.

What in what I wrote makes you assume that we did not do it exactly as you described?

I think there is a lot of speculation (even insinuations) here, which I find unfortunate because it misses the actual content.