Floor plan of a single-family house with a basement

Forgotten: I would place the dressing access on the left side of the plan, so you disturb the one still sleeping less while dressing :)

Regards, Yvonne

I find the draft quite good now, considering what you posted before. The rooms are clearly structured and functional.

I looked at the draft here earlier on its own, and only now compared it with the previous one:

I would also spatially separate the 2 bathrooms.

They were separated before, now I find it better. But before it appeared like two bathrooms – now more like one with a partition between the children's and parents' area. Only through the access from the bedroom-dressing suite (which was in the old draft) does the master bathroom become conceptually "meaningful."

I also think you should completely rethink the upper floor, for example, how about the dressing room in the cross gable?

The upper floor is – except for the side-switch of the children's bathroom and the staircase to each other – almost the "old" one. The cross house was previously a bay window only on the upper floor, and thus "something different" than the cross gable on the other side. Now they have become "comparable" and with their different styles look somewhat "crooked."

Extending this bay window downwards was a suggestion from the previous thread – and was implemented, as well as the straightening of the dining room (previously recessed in two directions) and the living room (previously recessed in one direction).

Actually, I should now praise that suggestions from the other thread have been implemented. But: the previous draft at least appeared individual – whereas the current one, despite the obviously inherited upper floor, now looks like a carelessly adapted catalog design with the basement option activated.

Without any claim that it would be "better" this way, just as a visualization of "changed":



and as mentioned, align the roof structures (both covered flat).

My very clear favorite, however, is: completely revise - preferably as "reengineering" - without adopting from "old" designs.

OK interesting feedback. Regarding "Room1" on the ground floor: This is intended to be used as a small office with a couch, and we explicitly planned this room on the ground floor because we definitely wanted such a room there. Through the window of this room and the kitchen window, the house communicates with the street, and we do not have the feeling of being completely cut off from the life on the (play) street.

In the area where Room1 is currently located, a platform staircase with the corresponding space requirements was originally planned in the initial design. However, we consciously decided against such a generous and thus also more representative staircase and for Room1. It was not a "utility room" that suddenly lost its purpose after the planning of the basement.

I interpret the partition wall between the kitchen and dining room as a load-bearing wall based on the wall thickness - but then the beam / lintel is missing both statically and visually the support on the living room side.

I did not understand that. Could you please rephrase it in other words? We will still insert a small indicated wall on the left side in the passage between kitchen/dining room to make it look more balanced. Is that what is meant?

Would you have such a nice chicken ladder without a knee wall? ;-)

What do you understand by the "chicken ladder"? I assume this refers to the staircase, but what does that have to do with the knee wall? As described above, the location of the staircase is also due to the decision in favor of Room1.

Moreover, we will significantly widen the door to the living room. It will probably be a sliding door with clear glass in the panels, so that a line of sight to the garden is created from the front door.

Oh yes, forgot: We will probably design the bathroom now as an "en suite" bathroom, so no access from the hallway anymore, but only through the bedroom/dressing room. It is true that this makes the "children's bathroom" concept coherent. The roof shape of both [Zwerchgiebel] is uniformly a gable roof.

In the area where Room1 is currently located, the original design initially planned a podium staircase with the corresponding space requirements. However, we consciously decided against such a generous and thus also more representative staircase and for the "Room1" instead.

When you get rid of a staircase, the floor plan should always follow immediately. Floor plan and staircase are like budgerigars, you should always keep them as a pair ;-)

I didn't understand that. Could you rephrase it in other words? On the left side of the passage between kitchen/dining room, we will insert a small suggested wall to make it look more balanced.

You actually can’t understand that. If this wall panel just stands there as decoration, meaning that the passage next to it is floor-high, then I was talking about a completely different kettle of fish. That’s why I don’t say or draw anything more about it, and you can throw my idea in the trash.

What do you mean by the "chicken ladder"? I assume that means the staircase, but what does it have to do with the knee wall?

This design reminded me less of your previous design than of the one from the linked thread by SupaCriz. There is no knee wall there, so the attic is accessed by what is politely called a "space-saving staircase."

The roof shape of both cross gables is uniformly a gable roof.

That’s good, but I didn’t read that from the plan.