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

[*]⚡ means high voltage, W (waste) water

cute. What is the marking supposed to be good for? The wastewater planning comes at the end.

This is separate, inspired by forum discussions,

Then you should be aware that necessary information is missing. What is the building envelope? How about filling out this questionnaire? https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundriss-planung-unbedingt-vor-beitrag-erstellung-lesen.11714/

very generous” house (architect’s comment),

The translation is: way too huge – areas are not well thought out.

how something beyond the floor plan could be gained

essential effects through small changes

Do I understand correctly that we now have a not very well thought-through design full of many mistakes from you, which is now being finalized by a planner, and we are supposed to come up with a few minor highlights like a sensible bay window so that this design is somehow nice? As you can already tell: I don’t think it’s good, especially not with your specifications. You don’t want to build an expensive house, but you mess around with living areas and realistically distributed wet rooms as if they cost nothing. I am always a fan of inexpensive building, where the simplicity of the rooms already delights, e.g. through light or sightlines. In principle, I find the location and orientation not well thought out: every visitor has to find a parking space outside the property and there is a large lawn lying fallow at the back. If the ridge direction is not prescribed and the building envelope still allows some space to the rear, I would give the house an orientation rotated by 90 degrees so that the children’s rooms get the southeast or southwest. On the ground floor, the southwest area relaxes, so you have outdoor space on two sides of the house. The fitness room should be without sloping ceilings; otherwise, a balancing act is not possible. Yoga works. Entrance with a view toward a sofa wall or the TV is not ideal, nor is the kitchen without a window in the working area. The children’s rooms have 30-cm? wardrobes drawn in, but no closets. Fitness room and guest room larger than children’s rooms… well… If I look for load-bearing walls, it could get expensive. Set doors don’t offer nice closet furnishings behind them. Only in the bedroom was an extra little corner added, which shows that little fits somehow. Such a little corner is also found in the utility room, so that the door to the guest area fits. Is that a platform staircase? Then it is too short. Steps should be distributed over at least 370 cm, better 400 cm. If you plan a window above the staircase, the corridor should have the same orientation so that it is lit, but not a dark transverse bar. If the corridor is already pleasantly lit with daylight, that is already a quarter of the rent. Windows in the garage in the distance area are also not possible. So if a few common planning modules are observed, a stylish house can be designed without finesse. What does the architect you trust actually do? Just a final drawing with statistical corrections? Feasibility? Many things are feasible, but whether you should build everything feasible for almost 700,000 - 800,000 € is something you might want to reconsider.

If the ridge direction is not prescribed and the building envelope still allows some space to the rear, I would give the house an orientation rotated by 90 degrees,

But of course with a newly designed house plan.

Do I understand correctly that we now have a not very well thought-out design from you, full of many mistakes, which is now being redrawn by a planner, and we are supposed to come up with a few smaller highlights like a sensible bay window so that this design is somehow nice?

I at least understand it differently: that the design is full of mistakes is our perception. I fear that from the TE’s point of view it is a quite serious perception that this 42nd design is already so close to the “Columbus’ egg” that with our impulses version 42.1 (or without it then 42.2) would be ready for submission – hence probably also the concrete planning of the utilities and their outlets. “Sensible bay windows” sounds to me very close to an almost perfect contradiction?

As you can already tell: I don’t find it good, especially not successful with your specifications. You don’t want to build an expensive house, but are squandering living space and realistically distributed wet areas as if they cost nothing.

Yes, plan and specification sheet here are already a humorous combination. An architect would be (tutto completto = service phases 1 to 8) cheaper than a dozen square meters overly generously drawn floor space (which does not get cheaper due to unfavorable placement and orientation).

Is there an aerial photo? People like to see the surroundings.

So little dialogue makes no sense. You should answer questions. I am waiting for your response.

Otherwise, I fully agree with . I already had a draft of the filmed house axis. But I wanted to see the surroundings first.

The design is flawed - as can be seen from the fact that hardly any room can be furnished sensibly; it is not attractive either - and far too many sqm are 'wasted'.

Thank you for the numerous comments!

Regarding the questions:

[*]Budget: Within the expected range (700k–800k have already been mentioned) we can manage it well.
[*]Statics: I obviously have to rely on experts – if it doesn't work or becomes absurdly expensive, then the design is simply void.
[*]Yes, the plot has been purchased.
[*]The distance of the garage to the neighbor is not regulated, but deliberately intended as an access.
[*]The mentioned architects are employees from the circle of friends.

What I have (in other words) already written:

[*]There is no slope.
[*]The building must be about 5m away from the street and it roughly is on the plan. (I only know of this building line as a boundary.)

I find the sofa area extremely uncomfortable. From the front door you look directly at the sofa, I wouldn’t want to sit with my back to the open passage.

I agree, I would swap the kitchen area with the sofa area. The current area between the sofa and the open-plan entrance is basically a hallway and somehow uncomfortable for the person sitting on the sofa.

I miss south/east sun in the living area here

I can understand these objections. Presumably, we should forgo the pantry in favor of a window and swap the sofa area with the kitchen for a more protected sofa area. The original wish was to be able to look from the sofa into the garden (which is quite bright despite its northwest location), but it doesn’t have to be directly in front of it.

Do I understand it correctly that we now have a not entirely well thought-out design full of many errors from you, which is now being redrawn by a planner, and we are supposed to come up with a few smaller highlights like a sensible bay window so that this design is somehow nice?

Naming these errors would of course be helpful. But whether everyone finds the design unacceptable, I can’t know beforehand – you will presumably allow me so much incompetence. ;-) Of course, polemics impress me as well, but the more abstract the criticism, the more likely I will continue to walk into my supposed ruin.

You don’t want to build an expensive house, but act as if living areas and well-distributed wet areas cost nothing.

It’s clear that it will be expensive. But an unnecessary extra expense would annoy me less than a functional deficit. Waste may be present, and it is true that I like to keep options open and therefore tend toward rectangles, which wouldn’t appear in a cleverly optimized plan. (In this respect, I’m surprised by the criticism of "complexity", which only occurs in one or two places.) Unfurnishability, on the other hand, would of course be bad – but given the variety of spatial design options, I can’t understand that.

In principle, I find the location and orientation not well thought-out: every visitor has to find a parking space outside the plot and a large lawn area lies fallow at the back.

The assumption is that it will not lie fallow. The garden is worth some disadvantages to us. Another reason for the orientation of the house was originally a certain fear of the railway line, which runs 70m away behind the next row of houses in a ditch. Since it only runs rarely and is not acoustically noticeable, that alone would probably not be a reason. But we want a large garden that is separated from the street. We did consider a rotated version, but rejected it at the time.

Fitness should be possible without sloping ceilings, otherwise balance is not possible.

The room is to have a dormer across the entire width.

Is it a landing staircase? Then it is too short. Steps should be spread over at least 370cm, preferably 400cm.

It is currently drawn at 420cm – maybe the indicated wall lengths are misleading.

I understand it at least differently: that the design is full of errors is our perception. I fear it is quite seriously perceived by the original poster, that this 42nd design is already so close to the “Columbus’ egg” that with our impulses version 42.1 (or then 42.2) would be ready to submit.

My arrogance less results in seeing my own ideas as the “Columbus’ egg” than expecting that even professional designs have pros and cons. In their personal weighing, a bay window can also appear desirable.

Is there an aerial photo? People like to see the surroundings.

There is no slope.

We have, with the self-perceptions of the questioners, I’d say “bad experiences,” if you understand …

The development must be about 5m away from the street and roughly is so on the plan. (I only know this building line as a boundary.)

Hopefully and probably it is only a constructionlimit.

The mentioned architects are employees from the circle of friends.

They should still be able to quickly sketch you something smarter on a napkin ;-) especially since we are already talking here about essential clumsiness on the level of placement and orientation.

Naming these mistakes would of course also be helpful. But whether everyone finds the design unacceptable, I can’t know beforehand – you will probably grant me that much incompetence. ;-) Of course, polemics also impresses me, but the more abstract the criticism is, the more likely I will continue walking into my alleged ruin.

See above; recognition of incompetence is the first step to consulting an architect – happily also the employer of a friend. The ruin is by no means alleged:

It’s clear it will be expensive. But an unnecessary extra expense would annoy me less than a functional deficit. Wastefulness may be present, and it’s true that I like to keep options open and therefore tend toward rectangles, which you wouldn’t find in a cleverly optimized plan. (In that respect, I am surprised by the criticism of "angularity," which only occurs in one or two places.)

The unnecessary extra expense begins with what I’d politely call the "willingness" to accept from planning inexperience the resulting empty square meters that translated into a paid construction outcome would cost more than the entire architect’s fee. The angularity, by the way – as already noted – definitely does not occur at just a few minor pain points, but starts off quite severely with the half-insertion of the garage.

The assumption is that it will not lie fallow. The garden is worth some disadvantages to us. Another reason for the orientation of the house was originally a certain fear of the railway line, which runs 70m away behind the next row of houses in a ditch. Since it only rarely runs and is not acoustically noticeable, that alone would probably not be a reason. [...] We had therefore considered a rotated variant once but rejected it at that time.

That a non-south garden is appreciated here has already been praise-worthy mentioned by me. The railway line is an essential reason for requests for a large-scale and also qualitatively comprehensive depiction of the surroundings, and the manner of mentioning it here honestly deserves a scolding. Once again very clearly: show a small selection of designs 1 to 41.

My arrogance results less in seeing my own ideas as the "Columbus egg" than in expecting that even professional designs have pros and cons.

I assumed less arrogance, and more simple operational blindness, which has a special expression in layman design development stories. Sometimes a "Stockholm Syndrome" of blind love for "brilliant" planning errors develops there.

In their personal consideration, a bay window can also come out as desirable.

A bay window "to fix that the staircase fits better in the floor plan frame" often triggers a domino effect comparable to the Loriot sketch with the crookedly hanging picture.

But we want a large garden that is separated from the street.

That is also a kind of Achilles’ heel and a popular basis for phenomenal Pyrrhic victories.

I would not only start a cleverly optimized plan completely free of such encumbrances, but also absolutely from scratch – that is, without germs from previous design attempts. Conceptually, you should not start with drawings, but with the room program, and then qualify it. Then continue with the upper floor and afterwards the ground floor. And let the main thing remain the main thing: family first, cars second. "And always think of the reader," as Helmut Markwort so fittingly said: in other words build a HOUSE, not a privacy fence.

And very important: you do all this initially only for your own tinkering fun. The result is only compared with the professional preliminary design once this is finished. DO NOT take ANY drawings into the first meeting!