Floor plan of a single-family house, slight slope location, northwest orientation

Hello everyone,

We have almost completed our planning with the architect and would like to ask you to also take a critical look at the floor plan. Afterwards, we would like to proceed with the tender. We basically like the ground floor very much. However, we are considering mirroring the house and making further changes to the upper floor. The garage, utility room, and technical room would move to the right and the entire house would shift closer to the neighbor's hedge (on the left, 3m distance). The living room would then be on the left. It is questionable whether the view to the neighbor’s hedge at a 3m distance is nicer. Positive: the house would be better oriented to the south and let in more sun. The kitchen would then be on the right and offer wind protection from the open field on the terrace. At the same time, the terrace would also receive sunlight.

Corner plot, one neighbor on the left, above and on the right only fields
Ground floor area: 99m2 (without terrace), garage 30m2
Upper floor area: 78m2 (from 1.5m)

Development plan/restrictions
Plot size
approx. 750m2

Slope
yes, facing uphill. There is a manhole cover on the street in front of the plot and behind the plot. The height difference between the covers is approx. 3m. The plot initially rises by approx. 1m from the sidewalk and

Edge development
yes, it is a corner plot. There is a neighbor on the left side. Behind the house and to the right there is a field path and fields.

Number of parking spaces
the adjoining street should provide enough parking spaces. A garage is also planned.

Number of floors
according to the development plan, 1.5-story houses are permitted

Roof shape
according to the development plan, only gable roofs are allowed

Orientation
northwest

Maximum heights/limitations
according to the development plan, the house must be built precisely in this alignment

Requirements of the builders
Style, roof shape, building type
Country house style, gable roof (eaves side facing the street), single-family house

Basement, floors
basement initially planned but discarded for budget reasons. 1.5 floors according to the development plan allowed and planned

Number of people, age
two adults, early 30s, (still) no child but a children’s room provided

Space requirements on ground floor, upper floor
Ground floor: garage, hall, office 1, kitchen, living room, dining room, pantry, technical room, utility room, guest bathroom with shower
Upper floor: bedroom, children’s room, office 2, bathroom, storage room (planned like this due to no basement)

Office: family use or home office?
both offices are currently needed due to the job

Guests per year
very rarely or none

according to the development plan, 1.5-story houses are permitted
rather open

Conservative or modern construction
modern (?)

Open kitchen, cooking island
open kitchen planned, cooking island desired but omitted due to lack of space

Number of dining seats
6, preferably extendable to 10

Fireplace
desired and planned as a divider between dining and living room

Music/stereo wall
desired, niche in the living room is suitable

Balcony, roof terrace
desired but discarded for budget reasons

Garage, carport
planned, questionable whether the garage should rather be positioned on the right to not block the south side

House design
Who created the plan:
Architect

What do you particularly like? Why?
The open living and dining area. The unobstructed view of the fields
The dormer on the upper floor

What do you not like? Why?
The hallway on the upper floor seems dark. Many roof windows are planned (knee wall 80cm according to the development plan, gable roof eaves side facing the street)
The ground floor could also be dark. The garage is located on the south side. The open windows to the fields are in the northeast.
Roof windows block the possibility for photovoltaic and attic
Storage room seems misplaced
Since a basement was planned earlier, a hobby room should also be provided, this is omitted
The master bed is directly adjacent to the children’s room. However, the bedroom must be planned there

Price estimate according to architect:
€540,000 (we find this ambitious, we expect more and would therefore also like to make the floor plan more compact)

Personal price limit for the house, including equipment:
€550,000 (all-in)

Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump

If you have to forgo, which details/extensions
-you can forgo: an air space was planned, already removed, storage room on the upper floor (really necessary?), ground floor could probably generally be smaller to save costs
-you cannot forgo: large windows on the ground floor, open living-dining area, access to the house via garage and utility room, fireplace, pantry

Why is the design the way it is now? e.g.
Which/were wishes were implemented by the architect? The architect implemented the room concept well and incorporated many own ideas which we mostly find coherent.
What makes it particularly good or bad in your opinion? We like the ground floor very much, there is still room for change on the upper floor. Above the front door we would also like another dormer, but this does not seem possible due to the development plan (upper floor becomes a full floor if too much area is affected by dormer(s)). The study could then be located where the storage room currently is. The storage room could become a kind of storage and hobby room.

We are grateful for any input and suggestions. What especially gives us pause is the southern orientation. We do not want the rooms to become too dark.

You should discard this plan, and probably the planner along with it. A house design can hardly start under much worse conditions: you yourselves find it needing a complete overhaul just because of the cardinal directions, and you would like it smaller for price reasons. The entire basement (and a - although this one is not a pity - open space) has already been reduced in the design without this having happened before the concept phase. You don’t really believe, do you, that if suggestions were made here to move a window and turn a door, the botched job would suddenly be clean and ready for construction. Besides, I get the impression the house entrances are overbuilt. The "architect" is probably more of a planner for a house manufacturer (which one would that be here?).

You should discard this plan, and probably the planner along with it. A house design can hardly come with much worse conditions: you yourselves already find it needing to be turned around just because of the cardinal directions, and you would like it smaller for price reasons. The design has already been reduced to cover the entire basement (and an air space - though this is not really regretted), without this happening before the conception. You don't really believe that if there were still suggestions to move a window and rotate a door, that this mess would suddenly be clean and ready for construction. Besides, I get the impression that the house entrances are overbuilt. The "architect" is probably more of a draftsman for a house manufacturer (which one would that be here?).

The plan certainly has its downsides (literally), but we have not perceived it as critically so far. Is a fundamental redesign really necessary and even feasible? The orientation of the plot is what it is, the building envelope is fixed as well, a garage is a must, and the plot is unfortunately somewhat narrow at the lower end and widens conically.

The architect is not from any construction company but was commissioned independently to develop a plan on the basis of which we will tender. This approach is often recommended

Is a fundamental replanning really necessary and even feasible? The orientation of the plot is just as it is, the building envelope is also fixed,

The building envelope is not visible in the drawing – but I also do not understand why it should be breached by a replanning. Yes, of course it should be fundamental – apparently in contrast to the previous one.

The architect was not hired by any construction company but commissioned independently

If the unusual dimensions do not come from a system of a house manufacturer, then these are questionable fantasy dimensions, which make me further doubt the planner’s qualification. Inform yourself via the forum search with the keyword "Pfuschertaschen".

to develop a plan on the basis of which we tender. This procedure is often recommended

Tendering on the basis of a draft drawing would be an expensive mistake. Where is such a procedure recommended? Look at "Bauen jetzt" in my home construction roadmap. Then complete "Module A" with a (suitable!) architect and in the resting phase make the key decision. From its result you can deduce whether with the architect the design phase 3 should be further planned either timber or masonry and a house provider takes over from design phase 4 or whether the architect should carry out the entire "Module B" as the next tranche. Tendering only takes place in "Module C", because for this a detailed planning is needed as a basis. By tendering on the basis of the building permit drawings one can burn multiple times the money that further planning would have "cost" (or better said: in which it would have been well invested). An inexperienced tender multiplies every planning deficiency. And in the key decision you first find out inexpensively whether you actually "have to" build an individual plan at all.

Honestly, you two?
I set the thread to watch, opened the two posts separately, only read the first few lines of the opening post, read the post by , and took a look at the ground floor regarding the claim of one being able to mirror it – the other one saying the design is crap.
I considered it feasible (I'll get to such a meager pantry of one meter depth or a dirt lock that leads through freshly washed laundry later anyway), but at first just a first impression and was only surprised by the staircase that’s crossing there. Then, of course, missing sightlines (I expect a bit more from an architectural design)... but all good: you can modify a good design.
Then I open the attic and notice the mistake: the staircase running across literally cuts across and makes the attic a patchwork. Sleeping is quite disorganized and for itself a patchwork with the wardrobes. The storage room is only accessible with a ducked head.

I wouldn’t have done the garage in the southwest like that. That’s the prime spot for light in the open space. I notice the 34 cm walls. I wouldn’t want to plan anything amateurish below 40, since they’ll be 42 or thicker anyway.
There’s a lot of space downstairs, but somehow hardly any upstairs.

So I read the wishes and the post explaining why it is the way it is (I’ve got the views at the top and right side of the plan).

... and then I have to read something like this:

The bedroom must be planned there

... as if a law dictated such a room location. The bedroom is the worst planned room in this forum in 2025. Still, it is not the reason why there is a lot of space downstairs but everything somehow feels cramped, and why the design upstairs has basically lost.

.. as if a law suggests such a room layout. The bedroom is the worst planned room in this Forum 2025. Nevertheless, it is not the reason why there is a lot of space downstairs, but somehow everything feels cramped, and the design upstairs has basically lost.

I wanted to write more about this decision. Unfortunately, a post can only be edited for 4 minutes. The bedroom was supposed to be planned in this corner because behind the field on the right side, about 500m away, there is a federal highway that is clearly audible depending on wind direction and humidity. I grew up near that street. As a child, it doesn’t bother you, but later it does. Therefore, the bedroom was planned on the other side.

I actually don’t think the sightline in the living-dining area is bad. I hear a lot of criticism, can understand it, but unfortunately don’t read any suggestions on how it could be solved better.

We don’t like the upper floor either, hence the request for input in this forum and not the direct step towards a developer. To be honest, one is a bit hesitant to start a new plan on a whim, which will cost another mid-four-figure sum without knowing if it will really be better under the given conditions.