In advance: I am usually not a fast responder because I want to answer thoughtfully. Sorry if I fall below the forum’s standard with that, especially on weekdays.
Hopefully and probably it is only a building boundary.
That is not a building line, that is a building boundary. You don’t have to build onto it, it only limits. You have to build on building lines.
Thanks for the clarification!
The railway line is a major reason for requests for a large-scale and also qualitatively comprehensive presentation of the surroundings, and the way it is mentioned here actually already deserves a scolding.
I had mentally already checked it off and therefore initially failed to mention it – sorry.
show a small selection of drafts 1 to 41.
They were by far not all complete drafts or are no longer available. There were some with a basement, with a corridor along the wall between entrance and garage, with a right-angled house extension to the north, with a study in the EG south corner. I have found one very early draft with zero-width walls and a later one with huge upper-floor corridor: (And no, these are not the only disadvantages I see in it now.)
[The wish for a large garden separated from the street] is also such a catch-22 Achilles’ heel, and a popular basis for phenomenal Pyrrhic victories.
Of course, pursuing wishes is risky because they do not have to correspond to what one would actually appreciate later. But the "space program" would also be such a “liability”. Sure, you will give up a bedroom less easily than the garden, but I can also put this hook on my draft. It is not “cleverly optimized,” and it may well be that even without compromises on my articulated wishes, some could be saved without ever missing otherwise empty square meters in the center of the rooms, maybe even welcoming shorter paths. On the other hand, some inefficiencies don’t scare me much because I don’t trust my view into the future: Who knows how a room will be used in 20 years?
If the stairs are supposed to have a landing, then what does your dimension of 420 cm mean? 419 cm is already the length of a straight, comfortably walkable staircase.
But the straight staircase would then end directly in front of the outer wall – I would prefer a landing there to take a change of direction shortly before. But probably a spiral staircase would be better in this draft anyway, for the sake of headroom under the HTR door.
I [am waiting] for the completed questionnaire ;)
I looked again what I still haven’t answered there. Age (about 30/40/0/0) and seating capacity (usually 4, exceptional up to 8) are obviously simple, others less so:
[*]Quantifying “space requirements” would be difficult for me – especially since I estimate a lot of area for little function in my thoughts according to comments.
[*]The number of guests should preferably be very high, but a concrete number, especially since the in-laws will presumably stay for longer periods ...
[*]I don’t have a music wall and also do not need a soundproof music room as a colleague built in his end-terrace house.
[*]We would like a fireplace but may not have one due to funding conditions. Well, maybe the funding is off anyway because of the budget crisis.
[*]There might be a greenhouse one day, but it has no priority.
[*]There is no price estimate yet (for this draft). As to the scale of our investment willingness: we almost bought a standing house for €810k, although at a location with a much higher land value.
[*]If we had to save, initially dispensable would probably be among others: garden/guest area/study/hobby room/bedroom areas, a WC, a shower, the (now anyway deleted) storage room. But that is all a matter of weighing: I have lived 17 years of my life in under 20 m² (pro rata, as long as I didn’t live alone) and managed there just fine. With the possibility of affording more, of course the wish grows to at least approach one’s own childhood, so less indispensability than a “if already, then properly” guides the direction.
I notice you hardly take in any criticism. Only swapping kitchen/living room... but this advice is also not meant to implement it in the floor plan you drew, but to think about it in a new start,
Well, I see at least four types of criticism here:
[*]Notes on functionally disadvantageous situations in house use, like discomfort on the sofa and darkness in the morning. These two concrete ones made sense to me but can also be implemented without a revolution.
[*]Notes on general inefficiency, which is probably correct, but I can rationalize it with “who knows what the square meter is good for later” (limitation see above, because area can also have disadvantages).
[*]Notes on allegedly wrong priorities, which, even if 90% of architects agree, cannot really be objective. The hobby room can, for example, function as a playroom, so I see no harmful undersizing of the children’s rooms here. And the children get the sun not so much inside but rather in the garden, if there is space for a small soccer field because the house has an unfavorable bar position.
[*]Fundamental dismissal of the approach as something to throw away etc. – Here I wonder whether it’s only tastes or stylistic dogmas violated (“if already €800k, then no gym upstairs but something for the eye”), or if the first two categories’ disadvantages apply. (See your vague comment that the house “does not work.”) But much remains unsaid here because it is “not worthwhile anyway,” or I should not be further encouraged to fiddle with the existing draft.
I expected such a mixture, even if maybe not in the present quantitative composition.
But if one has some layman’s foolish ideas in mind and does not let oneself be dissuaded, then one pays for outer walls standing on garages, elaborate statics that are not necessary with good planning, mason surcharges for corners that can also be done cleaner, dozens of distributed toilet ventilations over the roof, more wastewater connections than normal, garage inside the thermal envelope, dormers that are expensive and should be used sparingly, etc.
The biggest and also expensive problem, however, are then the potential defects that are supposed to be minimized by good planning.
That is true. I hope for the expertise of the planner, who has already opposed ideas, e.g. dropping the upper floor ceiling in favor of insulation in the roof.
… because furnishing is more than arbitrarily distributing furniture?!
There was no talk of arbitrariness: I just meant that in a stylistically “failed” room a clever choice of furnishings can make a lot of difference. Maybe my design standards are also lower, and who knows, maybe my wasted space will later be an opportunity for great cat furniture or an arena for virtual reality? That the outer form would win prizes is actually not so important to me – maybe there will also be two burglary attempts less if thieves think everything looks as shabby as them.
Under a roof slope with 120 cm KS (calcium silicate block) for example, a screen will not work. And walking direction through a door into a wardrobe makes the room feel 1-2 sqm smaller.
That is true as well. Since I use a height-adjustable desk, the actual position will have to be different anyway. But the study is overelevated anyway (the room I would most likely sign off myself), so there will be space for it. For the window planning, a concrete consideration would be due at the latest.
Just draw your “spatial design possibilities” in your all-purpose room... a nice chill TV corner where you find some peace is simply not possible.
Thanks to your input, more so, even if the revised draft would probably be rejected again as too cobbled together because of a slanting WC wall.
Actually, I always favored a small hollow like those popular in the ’70s. But that was impossible with my wife anyway, so the other disadvantages were not even discussed. ;)
If the draft was actually just a finger exercise
No, it is not meant that way.
... it would be an indication of blindness to logical connections / conceptual basics, because that obviously contradicts a full-story upper floor (-attic) not possible here.
Fortunately, my “blindness to logical connections” apparently turned out to be fatal only on the topic of architecture. But I do not understand in what way the wish to locate rooms usually accommodated in the basement like guest or hobby room above ground should fundamentally contradict single-story construction.
Of course, it may be that the building authority rejects the draft with the argument that the garage cannot be regarded as divided: Either it is a garage, then it does not belong to the EG calculation basis of the full-height parts of the (then too large) upper floor, or it isn’t, thereby losing the spacing privilege. Or they accept it as an acceptable deviation from the rule because from the outside the house would look the same with a tiny garage for a motorcycle.