Murmele305
2025-01-29 20:32:33
- #1
Thank you very much for your numerous feedbacks.
Attached are some more points from the questionnaire. I have also attached a site plan.
Development plan/Restrictions
Requirements:
Floor area ratio: 1.2
Plot ratio: 0.4
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 mandatory
Maximum heights/limits: Gable roof 5.60 m
Further requirements: EH40+ is a requirement due to our application for the building plot
Client requirements:
Number of people, age: currently 3 people (36, 33, 1)
Open or closed architecture: open architecture
Conservative or modern construction: somewhere in between
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen with cooking island
Number of dining seats: 3
Price estimate according to architect: 650,000 Euro
A canopy will probably only be above the entrance in the end, since as you already said, that is the imbalance.
We also find the sofa landscape not quite optimal with the window behind it. However, we do not really want to remove the window since it is the south side. Another furniture layout has not come to us yet since having a TV in the living room is important to us.
Our architect also informed us about the requirements for the door in the upper floor today.
The columns under the garage are necessary according to the structural engineer.
The shape of the sofa is not fixed yet. All furniture will be newly purchased here. The view from the window faces the street. However, it is 6 meters to the end of the property and we would like to nicely design the garden there.
Regarding the depth of the window sill, shouldn't it be about 60 cm deep to really be able to sit properly?
The TV is on every evening for us. During the day, no.
Thank you very much for your many suggestions regarding the office. Does it not look strange on the upper floor if the wall under a visible roof truss does not lie under the ridge purlin? The office was only a consideration for us.
You went to 1.01 m at the entrance to the living room, right? We have also already considered whether the passages into the kitchen and living room should be larger.
The maximum 145 m² result from residential space funding. We are not allowed to build bigger here. The rooms in the basement are designated as basement because according to BayBO they are nothing else.
Basement 1 is a storage room / wine cellar / utility room. Basements 2 and 3 might still be merged. A cinema and video game room are planned here.
We have an appointment for the bathroom sample selection soon. A proper plan will be created then.
I partly agree with you about the 18 sqm children's rooms. However, the children can retreat here and may spend a lot of time there. My room was that big back then and I thought it was great.
We like a panoramic fireplace in the living room. We want it purely as a style element and not for heating.
The planning is done by a freelance architect and the basement is important to us because of our hobbies. The pile foundation comes from the structural engineer. There will be a separate planning for the bathroom. We have an appointment for sample selection soon. EH40+ is unfortunately mandatory due to our application for the plot.
Why should a visible roof truss be a saving measure? I have also attached a site plan.
I hope I did not overlook answering anything significant.
Please fill out the questionnaire and include the site plan with the house drawn in.
Attached are some more points from the questionnaire. I have also attached a site plan.
Development plan/Restrictions
Requirements:
Floor area ratio: 1.2
Plot ratio: 0.4
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2 mandatory
Maximum heights/limits: Gable roof 5.60 m
Further requirements: EH40+ is a requirement due to our application for the building plot
Client requirements:
Number of people, age: currently 3 people (36, 33, 1)
Open or closed architecture: open architecture
Conservative or modern construction: somewhere in between
Open kitchen, cooking island: open kitchen with cooking island
Number of dining seats: 3
Price estimate according to architect: 650,000 Euro
The house design is very clear and, apart from the space between the dining area and living area in the proposed furnishing, also space-efficient. Bir likes it quite a lot. What exactly is supposed to be "better"?
The design contains nothing that could be called a "mistake." Therefore, it comes down to matching the architecture with your life priorities.
Depending on where the imbalance is, the overhang from the garage to the front door might be too narrow to provide rain protection. As a design element, it works quite well as drawn.
With the furniture layout shown, the window seat is a nice and space-saving opportunity to sit with many people there. However, I rarely find sofa arrangements with the backrest facing the window to be good – but that is a matter of taste.
An additional office will make the upper floor too tight. If an office is part of the briefing requirements, then the entire design is not suitable.
A door to the garage roof fits if it opens outwards between the bathtub and the toilet. Whether this creates an unfavorable line of sight I cannot say, as I do not know what is around the house. Sometimes building authorities dislike walkable garage roofs and then impose requirements for fall protection. Sometimes it is simply not allowed.
A canopy will probably only be above the entrance in the end, since as you already said, that is the imbalance.
We also find the sofa landscape not quite optimal with the window behind it. However, we do not really want to remove the window since it is the south side. Another furniture layout has not come to us yet since having a TV in the living room is important to us.
Our architect also informed us about the requirements for the door in the upper floor today.
I agree with that. Why are the three columns under the garage in the basement?
The columns under the garage are necessary according to the structural engineer.
I would also compare it with my (at least imaginable) future reality. One cannot say whether "more" is possible because having "more" of something could mean less for someone else. Things that others might like may not (so) please you, on the contrary, they might prefer this or that.
We recently had this topic here, although in another context. First, I would consider the parapet height of 60 cm too high and would rather go down to about 40 cm. We have it similarly here but have only installed a 30 cm deep window sill. You can sit on it briefly (which none of us does) but you can nicely look out of the large window. So I would first clarify with you where and how your furniture really stands and generally draw ALL furniture with REAL dimensions into the plan, otherwise, the meaningfulness of your plan is limited. As already says, the sofa position shown is poor; do you really have exactly this sofa shape and size? What do you see when you look out the window, do you want to design something outside there? Are you TV junkies or do you sit there rather in a quiet zone with a nice view with music or for reading? Then the deep window can be quite nice. But at present it projects quite far into the room and takes up space that I would not want. For example, in our case, the windows are flush with the outer wall, meaning the "30 cm seat bench" completely disappears into the window recess. I find that nice, whether anyone sits on it is irrelevant, and it doesn’t disturb the room. It is simply a wide and deep window sill made of beautiful wood; call it a partial seat window or whatever, and it does not cost more than other window sills. Your drawing is not quite correct; measure the sitting surface, several centimeters are missing there which then project into the room.
The shape of the sofa is not fixed yet. All furniture will be newly purchased here. The view from the window faces the street. However, it is 6 meters to the end of the property and we would like to nicely design the garden there.
Regarding the depth of the window sill, shouldn't it be about 60 cm deep to really be able to sit properly?
The TV is on every evening for us. During the day, no.
I have improved the entrance to the living room. 80 cm is far too small. I would plan it larger.
The island somewhat longer and a window in the visual axis.
Thank you very much for your many suggestions regarding the office. Does it not look strange on the upper floor if the wall under a visible roof truss does not lie under the ridge purlin? The office was only a consideration for us.
You went to 1.01 m at the entrance to the living room, right? We have also already considered whether the passages into the kitchen and living room should be larger.
I like that , even if hardly anyone sits there. The "usual" window seats, known from Pinterest etc., mostly have an projecting wooden cladding in the entire recess and that is 1. expensive and 2. space-consuming if it protrudes; but as in the picture, it is chic and it does not bother that the sofa partly stands in front of it. That on the other hand would argue for a higher parapet than we have; also, that is why OP should urgently draw in real furniture with dimensions.
As it looks for you, you have a wall thickness of at least 40 cm and the window is flush with the outside. In the previous thread and in this plan, however, the window is planned centrally in the outer wall and then that monster protrudes into the room like a cabinet.
This picture shows you the key data, also about parapet and depth; the additional costs only lie in the slightly larger window sill.
Your personal background for the construction is missing so far, so it is not evident why you are planning an expensive basement whose use (apart from utility room) you apparently have not really planned; the rooms are probably just there. Are you really TV freaks (cinema in the basement)? Then I would at least have a WC downstairs; I would have it in the basement anyway; then I would completely eliminate the TV in the design on the ground floor. A high six-figure amount for 55 sqm of freely usable basement space that I might or might not need sometime? That would be cheaper and more comfortable without.
... as a living space requirement? Why that, if so much money is going into the basement and you are still looking for an office?
Also here: "... larger" – but why. What should happen with the extra size? A too large bathroom is usually uncomfortable unless there is a concrete design idea behind it. I find that already 12 sqm is too large, especially if you are already looking for an office. Likewise, children's rooms don't need 18 sqm, but rather a clever plan for desks or niches / shelves; sheer size is meaningless.
Furnish your bathroom with real furniture and appliances and please draw in the partition walls too. Until now, this is not a plan, but just everything put down. From this follows the actual need for window position or the WC, etc.
The maximum 145 m² result from residential space funding. We are not allowed to build bigger here. The rooms in the basement are designated as basement because according to BayBO they are nothing else.
Basement 1 is a storage room / wine cellar / utility room. Basements 2 and 3 might still be merged. A cinema and video game room are planned here.
We have an appointment for the bathroom sample selection soon. A proper plan will be created then.
I partly agree with you about the 18 sqm children's rooms. However, the children can retreat here and may spend a lot of time there. My room was that big back then and I thought it was great.
Why would you plan a chimney if you have a heat pump?
We like a panoramic fireplace in the living room. We want it purely as a style element and not for heating.
I see here a maximally loveless draftsman adaptation of a substitute villa on a gable roof; even the chimney from the drawer has remained. A cellar underneath is placed under the house, not required by the terrain, for the omitted Christmas-tree-décor attic. A generous leftover space above the toilet on the upper floor is given sanitary objects, and the bathroom is done. A one-sided "pile foundation" with concrete-filled well ring columns prevents the garage from tilting toward the house side. A window seat acts as a symbol of a gain compared to the previous living situation. The classification of the building ensemble in the site plan is missing. The justification for the EH40+ energy standard I at least overlooked. I see NOTHING here worth saving if the OP goes to a freelance architect (which I recommend). There is noticeable potential alone due to more reasonable dimensioning and subdivision of the room program. I do not suspect the open roof undersides here as architectural gourmet but rather as a nicely misbelieved saving measure.
The planning is done by a freelance architect and the basement is important to us because of our hobbies. The pile foundation comes from the structural engineer. There will be a separate planning for the bathroom. We have an appointment for sample selection soon. EH40+ is unfortunately mandatory due to our application for the plot.
Why should a visible roof truss be a saving measure? I have also attached a site plan.
I hope I did not overlook answering anything significant.