Floor plan of a single-family house measuring 14x14 meters with limited ridge height

I take this as a quote template because the OP is asking for it: I consider 14x14 (without light well) to be a completely wrong approach. Added to this is an airspace that is not planned accordingly to bring light into the darkness. In this respect, nothing fits to be commented on (at least not by me)

Normally, the provider's houses are also built with a light well, but even with 12x12 m that would have exceeded the ridge height. I had already experimented a lot with that, but I see no good geometric solution for it. You could at most install roof windows facing north and omit the gallery ceiling over the hallway or leave the children's room and study open as well. Then there would each be very high ceilings, stretching from about 3 m up to 5 m in height...

max. living space at low cost.

I already find this approach unfortunate, because living quality does not come from "efficiency" in the sense of "extracting as much built-up space per money as possible from the building plot" — even if this way of thinking explains the decision for the "logical next step" of the square floor plan. The only problem is that initially turning the wrong way into "consistent further development" then leads straight into a deep dead end (even if the OP only notices the windowless interior bathroom — which, by the way, would only tempt me to add a skylight). The "design concept" of "subtracting individual rooms from a rectangular frame and whatever remains is the all-purpose room" is generally nothing more than a bestseller among beginner’s mistakes — and if the rectangle is even a square, it is "achieved" in almost the highest perfection (only topped if one does the same with a circle). It would really be devilish if even a freshly graduated architect would not come up with something better. At 14 m edge length (= 7 m daylight path to the middle), the misunderstanding of the insight "the first house is built for an enemy" as a call to action is pushed to the extreme, especially when continued with "and for the greatest enemy one plans it oneself". Do yourself a favor and use this design only as a dummy for a discussion shifted toward the question of the building material. A building material supplier very active in the commercial sector (Hebel, the name can certainly be mentioned here) is promoting the shift to "building without a separate supporting structure", so explicitly prefers homogeneous construction over the aerated concrete-steel skeleton combination.

I had already experimented a lot there, but geometrically I see no good solution for it.

You should learn for your life that just because you think it is like that or that it only works that way, it can be quite the opposite, because you are either wrong or have no clue at all. This also applies to the tenders.

Names may definitely be mentioned here

Exactly! Names may be mentioned here.

Names are not allowed to be mentioned here

Where from? Where does the false information come from? A statement without consequences, while other, possible statements are wrongly interpreted by you and may negatively affect the house.

Here is a draft from the internet. You can adapt it and add a staircase.



You can also enlarge one of the children's rooms a bit and make the office a little smaller. Photovoltaics then with E/W orientation. Terrace with glass roof 7m*3.5m.

Instead of focusing on maximizing square meters and achieving the lowest possible price per square meter, I recommend focusing on your own lifestyle. It is quite possible that the design suits you and your family.

Anyone who wants the largest cargo space relative to the purchase price buys a panel van. If someone buys a panel van from this price-performance perspective but would actually prefer a comfort-oriented vehicle, they are making a wrong decision by setting the wrong priorities.

Our approach in building was different. We thought about how we want to live and asked the architect to create a design that optimally supports our lifestyle, regardless of square meter specifications. For the price of our house, we could easily have built twice the living space in a different form and construction – so what. The house we live in now fits us perfectly, and even after six years I feel grateful and happy every day for my beautiful and suitable home.

Normally, the provider’s houses are also built with a light well, but that would have exceeded the ridge height even with 12x12 m.

There are concepts that lose their charm when you take away their central features. It could be that the absence of the light well – to stay with the image above – makes it a panel van with closed tail doors.