Hi, here is the creator of the plan :).
Before my better half replies, I would like to give a few pieces of information about the thought process behind it.
The orientation and alignment:
First of all: the south is not unobstructable. In fact, the bungalow is about the same age as all the houses before it. It is quite possible that a house will be built on the rear property of the bungalow. A direct access for a car wouldn’t even be necessary. Such a thing can be arranged differently. It’s even not unlikely at all that a house will eventually be built there, because prices in the region are so high that such properties generally are not sold as a whole. Hardly anyone can afford that at the current land prices here. That means the free unobstructed view to the south is not as certain as assumed here. Whether or not a house will be built there and if yes, when, we don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
There is also a design in which the house is rotated, that is the ridge running north-south. In that case, the children's rooms are on the south, the living/dining room as well, kitchen east, office northeast, etc. That’s also nice, but then we took tape measures and string to the plot and staked it out. There simply is not enough air to the south if someone built their little house three meters from the border there. That’s why I rotated it to gain a bit more distance.
What might also be important to know: there are quite a few trees along the railway line to the east and due to the elevated position the sun comes relatively late in that area.
Size of the house:
We know that neighbors had problems with the approval of the size, knee wall height, etc., although their architect thought it would fit. The size of the design was based on the built-up area that the neighbors finally got approved after a long back and forth. I also made an inquiry about the implementation of the building code to the city and asked about the measurements etc. We were told that it fits in. It’s not legally binding, but a good first indication.
Basement:
Yes, the basement is explicitly needed. There are no meaningless rooms; the statement was merely that we don’t yet know exactly how we want to divide it. It is unquestionable that we need and will use the space.
Office:
The office is full-time workstations. I would even say that it will be the most used room in the house on weekdays and outside vacation times, which is why its orientation must be well-considered (and was).
Living/Dining/Kitchen:
I find a corridor-like layout awful and absolutely do not want that. Also no closed kitchen. That leaves almost only the L-shape remaining, which has to be somehow placed ;). The alternative would be to mirror the whole thing, so that the kitchen is in the northeast, but then the office would be southwest and the entire living area would get no light from the west. Also, the stairs would have to move further west, which would unnecessarily enlarge the bathroom upstairs.
Bathroom upstairs:
Yes, it’s not huge, but it doesn’t have to be. I grew up in a house with a 12sqm bathroom and other than being able to lie in the middle of it, it simply didn’t have any remarkable advantage. That section with the “laundry basket tower” was more of an idea. I am still convinced that something like this behind the door is quite cool as storage space. What is true though: the height from step to ceiling there is 2m. That should be more. Also, 1.2m depth is simply too much and the wall thickness is 0.21m. I see an interior dimension of 0.45m x 0.65m as feasible, including headroom at the stairs. But somewhere you need something like a laundry basket or similar. The second bathroom downstairs has the bathtub because we just don’t use it often. I see no big sense in making the bathroom bigger just to install an item that is rarely used. There is space for that downstairs.
Master bedroom:
I think it was already said: the small room, i.e. parent room 2, is to get a dormer and the room gets 30cm more space from parent room 1. These are not needed if a 1.5m wardrobe goes in there. Something like that, although the walls around the dormer would of course have no recesses etc. It’s not huge, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s for sleeping and dressing and in at most 20 years the big rooms will belong to us :)
In general the plan was created by thinking about how we use and move around in rooms. I also considered what I/we find important. For example, someone wrote that double-leaf terrace doors should be a standard in new buildings. Never in my life have I thought, visiting relatives/acquaintances or in the houses/apartments where I have lived, that a single-leaf terrace door is uninviting or that I would prefer a double-leaf door there. Also the access to the terrace from the kitchen, whose absence is often criticized. I never gave that much thought, so it has low priority. In everyday life that just plays a minor role, unlike, for example, a corridor shape or a separated kitchen. I simply don’t like that.
