Floor plan of a single-family house 240 m² with a partially built-over garage

I cannot see that there is a thoughtfully considered space program underlying this. I mean something like planning 4 bathrooms, and none of them have a size where you feel comfortable. They are all hotel-sized. Or that the entire technical equipment for a family of 4 plus a permanent guest only has 6.8 sqm in one example. That's absurd or doomed to fail. I would take a big step back again and lay the matter out in front of me soberly with the question: Do I want to live like this?

I would definitely substantially shorten the hallway on the ground floor.

It was initially smaller in the architect's design before we requested the row of cabinets behind the guest room door. We couldn’t think of an alternative where a reduced hallway wouldn’t simply result in more circulation space in the guest room or utility room – or rather, in version 1 it was assigned through the questionable relocation of the guest room access into the kitchen. How exactly would you even “substantially” shorten it?

uh… no… shelves with 30 cm depth or garage shelves do not replace wardrobes where seasonal clothing is stored or boxes can be kept. That needs to be differentiated.

Of course, those don’t replace wardrobes. But regarding other storage options, the rows in the garage and guest room are at least designed with 60 cm depth.

If you have understood and followed my house-building schedule, obviously not yet.

I’ve now read into it: from the start we obviously haven’t followed it (according to this thread), so (and due to character) the dough unrest is now probably more pronounced than in the optimal case. On the other hand, we have had calmer phases in between given the long time elapsed since planning began.

That is an explicitly unfair trick to circumvent the full storey requirement, which accordingly leads to disqualification.

Where is this unfairness “expressed” – in case law? Dormers are allowed, and if a height restriction on them is ultimately interpreted as contrary to the spirit of the building code, then so be it. But I wouldn’t prematurely exclude options, especially because the purpose of the rules is not to complicate the use of space but to create a homogeneous external appearance in the neighborhood. The neighbors even have a cross-gable dormer, which I subjectively perceive as rather standing out, not to mention a possible other ridge direction – maybe the approving authority is quite okay with “internally low” dormers.

I rarely say this, but here I would vote in favor of the basement. Otherwise, it’s just one big squeeze and in the end you have a bunch of tiny bathrooms and tiny offices.
The fitness room can easily go downstairs, as well as the utility and laundry room, that already fills two-thirds of the basement.

The “fitness room” is already intended for several functions, and giving up its windows would be a greater disadvantage to me than a width of 2 m for a bathroom. Sure, with a basement at least the utility could go down there (my wife wants the washing machine in the bathroom) and the study could take its place. But for that effect alone, the basement would of course be an expensive solution.

I cannot see that a thoughtfully considered spatial program underlies this. [...] I would take a big step back and soberly lay the matter out in front of me with the question: Do I want to live like this?

The question "do I want to like my own planning attempts" is regularly answered with "yes!" – especially if a friend, who is professionally an architect, hasn’t simply rejected everything outright. So, okay, correction: I would still go into the budget adjustment/switch-setting round now with this V2; but for the preliminary building inquiry it is recommended not to use it, but rather first commission an unbiased independent architect with the planning.

I mean something like planning 4 bathrooms, none of which has a size in which one feels comfortable. Everywhere it is hotel size. Or that the entire technical equipment for a family of 4 plus a permanent guest has only 6.8 sqm in one example. That is absurd or doomed to failure.

Yes: that a general contractor’s lackey corrects the technical room only after feedback from the heating engineer and then plays domino Tetris with the floor plans is really not desired – even if from the layman’s own view nothing worse would come of it than reducing the little study room again to a laptop bag storage chamber.

I have now read into it: From the beginning we of course (obviously based on this thread) did not follow it, so (and character-wise) the dough resting situation may now be more pronounced than in the best case. On the other hand, we already had calmer phases in between given the much time elapsed since the start of planning.

The dough resting (feel free to use the dialogue options) is equally advisable for all temperaments, so it is by no means intended only for sanguine types or even obsolete for choleric ones.

Where is this unfairness “expressed” – in case law? Dormers are permitted, and if a limitation of their height is ultimately interpreted as contrary to the spirit of the building regulations, then so be it. But I would not prematurely rule out options, especially since the purpose of the rules is not to complicate the use of space, but to create a homogeneous external appearance in the neighborhood. The neighbors even have a gable dormer, which I subjectively perceive rather as standing out, not to mention a possible different ridge direction – perhaps the approving authority is quite okay with “internally low” dormers.

We were not talking about dormers or their individual height regulations – such have not yet come to my attention – but specifically about your idea to trick the floor areas in the dormers (or gable houses, which in this regard makes no difference) out of the full storey calculation by planning them at a height below 230 cm. It is at least stated in comments and/or judgments – if not even in building code texts – that artificially/intentionally nominally lower roof rooms primarily for calculation purposes are considered an inadmissible circumvention.

The "fitness room" is already intended for several functions, and giving up its windows would seem to me a greater disadvantage than a width of 2m for a bathroom. Sure, with a basement at least the technology could go there (my wife wants the washing machine in the bathroom) and the study could take its place. But for this effect alone, the basement would of course be an expensive way.

First, a basement does not always mean that there are no windows. You have to look at that closely first. 2. But a 2m wide bathroom for a lifetime is extremely modest and if I had to choose a fitness room with little or no windows because of that, I would not hesitate to vote for a proper bathroom. 3. Washing machine in the bathroom is rather a makeshift solution and not a dream to be fulfilled. But everyone is the architect of their own fortune.

I mean something like planning 4 bathrooms and none of them has a size where you feel comfortable. It’s hotel size everywhere. Or that all the technology for a family of 4 plus permanent guest in one example has only 6.8 sqm. That’s absurd or doomed to fail.

I see it exactly the same way.
Lots of sqm, but nothing inspiring. Sometimes only similar comfort as in a 135 sqm semi-detached house. But I already wrote that. The same points mentioned in another version also apply here.

Here are:
- poorly zoned, yet very large open area -> the missing office could be added northwest (see sketch)
- I remember that the "granny flat" is for visiting parents? I would plan a smaller , holiday apartments have smaller ones where the hotplate (electric plate) is portable. That should be enough.
- Also, I would probably consider the option to connect the WC and the granny flat bathroom (transparent sliding partition). That brings light and saves space. The "barrier-free" circle in the visitor’s bathroom doesn’t make sense to me, because you can’t even get into the granny flat bedroom without bumping into something.
- Personally, I don’t like the side entrance. It also wastes living space and you carry street dirt in front of the stairs.
- Upstairs, I would skip south-facing windows in the bedroom, bed under the slant. The dressing room is too narrow – overall there are too few wardrobe meters in a 230 sqm house.
- That brings us to storage space, which is completely missing. Nothing downstairs, even the freezer cannot accommodate a for clothes. There is no office either, where another wardrobe could stand. The small bathroom upstairs is for washing, but there is no place to dry clothes. Where to put suitcases and decoration stuff? No options except cluttering up the fitness room. I think the house is big and expensive enough that this should be right.
- Now one might complain that the children’s rooms are next to the bedroom, but I don’t find that so bad.
- Basically, the bathrooms are really tiny. They may be enough for morning and evening washing, but nothing more. I would merge the spaces properly.
- I like the work corner for the work alternative (sewing machine, writing letters, sorting bills) but as a main office with a printer it is not suitable in my eyes.

And here the conversion

before we requested the wardrobe row behind the guest room door

the rows in garage and guest room are at least set with 60 cm depth

The "fitness room" is already intended for several functions,

I’ll put it this way: if I build or own a house for my life, my family, and my daily work, then living with reserves, cleaning supplies, hobby boxes, seasonal clothing, and daily trips related to various household matters belong to it. Then I want to have that accommodated as well. No mishmash. Although I am a friend of multifunction rooms, I know no one who wants to first go into the guest room to get something and then to the fitness room to get the other. If a light bulb breaks, you have to go into the cold garage. It is just annoying to have to search for things and store them in places that make little sense. And you also disturb other housemates when you enter the rooms. Two children are planned or already present, but no one will ever really be able to use rooms for themselves. Guests not, sports people not, and watching TV, anyone can come out of the protected area so that relaxation is difficult. Because you always look around to see who is coming.
You blow up the guest room so that you have over 5 meters of wardrobe there, of which the guest really only needs half or one meter. The guest has more running wardrobe meters than you have in the bedroom. Sorry: Dressing room, i.e., a room designed only for wardrobe space, has less...
Bathrooms! They are not that tiny at all. But not corresponding to 240 sqm. I’d say: they disappoint. A lot more could be done. Your wife wants the washing machine in the bathroom. Or does she mean she wants the washing machine where laundry accumulates? How about planning a generous utility room?! The space in the master bathroom is finite and for household appliances in white, if you want to furnish nicely, there is no space there. And also here applies: calm toilet sitting or bathing is not possible because someone (e.g., the children) needs to wash something.
Bedroom with two doors at the head – also very cozy.
Personally, I don’t even know why you need a fitness room. Put on sports shoes, open the door, and run laps. The rest goes through gardening.

Yes, of course you may build like that! But I think the planning somewhat misses the common human basic needs. You can recognize the planning part in the family that has less connection to daily work, i.e., household, and wants to stay loyal to their training device within their four walls (in an apartment?).

How would you even "properly" shorten it?

[ATTACH alt="grundriss-einfamilienhaus-240-m-mit-teilueberbauter-garage-652710-1.png"]83851[/ATTACH]

But I think the planning somewhat misses the common basic human needs. You can see the planning part in the family, which has somewhat less relation to daily work, that is, household...

The consequence will be that two years after moving in, one is already considering where to extend, since despite 240 sqm there is too little space everywhere.