Floor plan opinions single-family house 140 sqm 2 full floors

Why shouldn't someone treat themselves to something they find beautiful if they are willing to accept less elsewhere for it?

Maybe, and not only that, because aesthetics quickly become subordinate when you can't see them for various reasons. For example, when they become inconspicuous due to disorder or location. You forget that the original poster cares about a functioning house. I tend to focus more on the whole and not just one detail. The package should be right. If it also gets a set of ribbons and flowers, then it's a joy. But joy doesn't arise if only the packaging looks nice.

To be honest, I don't want to spend thousands of € again. I can see how my floor plan apparently causes problems. And I also read in other threads that the architect planned, and the drafts have many errors and weaknesses.

Did you go to a “@Gerddieter warns architects,” meaning a discount architect who charges a princely five or even eight thousand for “service phases 1 to 3” of floor plan painting or something?

You really shouldn’t have a design made, but only a preliminary draft (for discussion, further maturation, setting the course, and possibly a building inquiry). A design is not “further” or “better” than a preliminary draft – rather worse, because unsuitable (and more expensive on top). Many young architects of the “CAD generation” have not understood the technique of multi-stage designing, they start right away in third gear and happily produce drafts according to the “infinite monkey method,” uncontrolled by any concept, as if they were Monday painters, instead of working academically, technically clean and conceptually. This costs clients a lot of time and money and leads to no usable results (since that’s not even possible otherwise). Reading my house construction roadmap costs nothing (available online 24/7, no paywall), and if you don’t understand something, it still costs nothing (except a call to the editorial hotline; nowadays almost everyone has a flat-rate landline). After that, you go to one architect (not as a substitute to charlatans, but as many as money, time, and patience allow) and complete mind you only the “Module A” (because “more” makes no sense before dough rest and setting the course).

I dare to lean out the window and say that almost every (second) general contractor or construction company offers a functioning (cost-neutral) design as a type house. It may be that here and there a wall could be moved and the type design suffers a bit in one, two, or three spots, but it would still work better than this one.

Yes, that adds up: Müllermeierschultzes with a 2-room, 2-kitchen household without a slope location do not necessarily need an individual design.

A second kitchen is really only worthwhile in exceptional cases, for hunters, farmers, or truly sophisticated baking enthusiasts. For normal average life, they are totally useless. Because you also have to keep order there, otherwise you don’t see the chaos and everything becomes much more tedious. It’s better to keep order in the main kitchen right away.

Everyday meals are “magicked up” by a single cook without a pastry chef or a whole “brigade.” A “show kitchen” and a “mess kitchen” are generally already one too many, and under the premise of a size cap (whether 140 sqm self-limit of the OP or 160 sqm subsidy limit is the same here) all the more.

Space requirement for the staircase: Straight stairs in small houses are always criticized here.

A straight one-flight staircase must be affordable for a house, and a “small” house can’t afford that. At the risk of repeating myself: this stair form is firstly a deadlock for every floor plan and requires (similar to symmetry, both together even more) about twelve meters of house width in every affected floor (in the attic accordingly between the 2m lines). Develop a good stair going backward from the upper exit, then it reliably finds its place and shape.

I see a plot here that fans out (and its building envelope does as well, but the floor plan does not). So the complained-too-narrow bathroom would definitely be avoidable. What is the nonsense about ignoring service phase 1 and starting right away with “designs” without doing homework, that can’t be any better than the other (and this could go on to the forty-seventh and twelfth)?

I also saw that. That only creates confusion.

The picture 3864 in post #37 is nonsense too: it shows the plot (outer frame, north unknown), and inside it (presumably incorrectly, as at the bottom of the plan a 3m and at the top 7m building setback is shown) the building envelope.

The beautiful straight staircase is worth the less space to the builders. Living quality is created not only by space and functionality but also by aesthetics

The straight staircase in the original post also results in a rather small cloakroom. The aesthetics are then already influenced by additional storage space that somehow stands under the stairs. The staircase will also just pass by the door to the utility room, which also has to be carefully planned. That’s why it’s always difficult. Personally, I would actually like the half-landing staircase from the second example of the OP, not necessarily in that position, but as a staircase itself, yes ;)

If it also gets a set of ribbon and flowers, then it's a joy. But joy doesn't arise if only the packaging looks nice.

That is absolutely correct. The function must be preserved. I see that as given. Space is lost, the hallway is narrow, the coat area is tight. all correct. You then have to be able to deal with that, so not allow too much stuff. Not an easy task with 2 children, I remember all too well our too small hallway in the terraced house.

And at the same time: My money would be too precious for me to buy something that contradicts my aesthetic sense. This is not a question of money, but of attitude to life. I understand that one can see this very differently with just as much justification. Once the disadvantages are named, and they are, a decision can be made for the less practical for very good reasons. This is about an attitude towards life that eludes external judgment if it does not impose anything disadvantageous on the outside.

And yes, a messy room with the right proportions always looks better than a tidy room that does not have them. As I said, people can experience life very differently. From my point of view, the decisive factor in individual house construction is that the house is tailored to the life of the residents. In this, deviations from the norm are particularly important.

Those who strive for a "normal" life do not need an individual house. There are great off-the-shelf concepts here that lead to results with a few inexpensive adjustments. An individual house does not have a higher value than another; if it is good, it only better meets the individual needs of the builders. Often an individual house has a higher depreciation because it is harder to find people who think "equally individual" when reselling. This is explicitly not about better or worse, but about effective or not. This question can only be answered by herself.

So, I just went over everything in my mind again. I still like the floor plan.

However, I have now tried to incorporate your suggestions into a different floor plan. I drew it myself, just to mention that.

I have only drawn the ground floor for now. The question I am asking myself is, does the floor plan work like this?

The entrance area is only 1.75 meters wide, and after entering, the wall is already at 2.25 meters. It could possibly feel a bit overwhelming. Especially in combination with the stairs.

I also looked at other posts and immediately incorporated a rotated staircase to keep the ascent away from the dirty area.

Does anyone have this setup, and how is it when you come in and see the stair steps immediately on the right? Is it cramped? Or can you even build an excellent wardrobe out of it? Because I am currently missing one in the floor plan.

The hallway now does not offer any real additional storage options. The guest WC is now small, but should be feasible like this? I have not marked anything in the utility room yet; this should only be checked for actual feasibility later.

The passage to the living/dining area is only 1.5 meters wide and at the same time the staircase’s ascent/descent. Does this work? According to the configurator, I have drawn the staircase as 3x2 meters (15 steps, 25.2 cm tread, 18.9 cm riser). I would really appreciate an assessment from you on this.

The kitchen is now larger at 3.5x3.5 meters. The pantry remains, as I simply want a storage room! I would only give that up for a larger utility room if this one would not work.

Otherwise, the table with chairs as well as the sofa, which we have and want to take with us, are drawn in with the correct measurements.

The house now has the base dimensions of 10.2x9 meters. The previous floor plan was 10.49x8.74. So the same basic area is maintained. I made all interior walls 24 cm thick. Some could possibly be changed to 11 cm thick. Ultimately, it would only slightly increase one or another room, so I calculated the worst case.

The north arrow is attached. So, I hope I have considered everything and am happy to receive criticism. Thank you.

Without seeing the OG, I cannot assess that.
Nice that you included the kitchen in the drawing. A 1m passage would be too narrow for me. The smaller the kitchen, the more important the help of an experienced kitchen planner is.
Radically thought: The partition wall from the hallway to the kitchen is dispensable. Just imagine how it would be to have more workspace instead of this wall. The entire kitchen is decongested.
If I understand correctly, the technical room becomes a bit smaller and the "dirt lock function" for entry with wet dog / boots is sacrificed in the new design.
I still like the first design better, but I was not the big critic anyway.