Floor plan optimization, single-family house, city villa 12x12m

I would also rather move into an apartment in the middle of the city center when I’m older than have to take care of a big house. But I’m saying that now at 34. We’ll see :p

My plan is basically to do it like my great-grandmother. Stable work, birthday party, running around the mayor, going to sleep and never waking up. Later, one should not lose sight, but the now should be decisive in planning. Maybe it is normal to downsize in old age, maybe in 40 years the extended family with 3 or 4 generations under one roof will be normal. Who knows. Later is definitely not the dominant part here. It is clearly a house for a family. Regardless of the dimensions.

I don’t want to say anything more about the floor plan as long as an upper floor is arranged solely for beautiful symmetry ;)

Depends on the type of "person".

I think so too!

As long as I live in the house as a family, I don’t have the space, and for me it would be too tight!

Many have no guests and hobbies until the children have left home. But I think you have to weigh that up yourself.
While the argument of a granny flat for potential family members (children) is often used, in my opinion you should simply consider the most obvious first, before you cut yourself off half of the house by separating the usually upper floor and then want to live on 80sqm with a small shower bathroom. Namely, that the children move to another city, want to live in their own house with their family and then one or two rooms, namely the old children’s rooms, can be used for visits from the grandchildren and new hobbies, for which there will also be time and enthusiasm.
Many here no longer think about the obvious at all. Only the extreme worst cases: convenience and luxury/size come first, and when the children are grown up, then the granny flat is for them, and you yourself reduce your living space from 200 to 30-40%.
I very rarely see that as an option that people choose…

That the old widowed ladies do not give up their big houses in favor of younger families

Phew, another extreme. When the children have left home, as a couple you usually still have around 20 years plus, where you should and can enjoy your own house and garden. Having children under one roof is only a phase anyway.

Our parents live in houses that are way too big (both around 240 sqm living space plus plenty of utility space) and that is a problem. Not at 60 but from 70 onwards.

My parents built quite well: fairly large on the ground floor, no basement, but attic only for the child with sloping ceilings and storage room – they enjoy their 1500 sqm plot. Especially during the Corona time. I have long given up trying to encourage them to look for something smaller. As long as Dad can keep his body fit in the garden every day, and Mom can still drive a car, everything is fine. 160 sqm is not too much for them. Mom has her yoga mat and a second TV in the old children’s room for alone time. Everything’s good.

Therefore, when building a house, you should weigh everything up that could actually become relevant.

But for the "normal" single-family house in the 140-170m² range, I really also see a need to live in it well into old age.

That may be, that the suitability of the retirement house comes little from the fact that it would be smaller than the midlife house.

has mentioned it often enough. The trend is towards building anew close to retirement, smaller, single-story. Although we create the option of separating part of the house as a separate apartment, I do not see a later sale and rebuilding as unrealistic!

Last week I elaborated on it in two posts, to be googled via "Baulotse Hoffmann Altersbauen". Separating a separate apartment is not fundamentally wrong. However, overall, by simultaneously designing one house for today and later, the dilemma can easily arise that either today you build a jack-of-all-trades (which strains the budget), or you make compromises that lead to bottlenecks in the case of "living with a walker".

The following main topics have been identified from your comments:
1. Children's rooms at the open space / the open space itself

The children’s rooms are a nice size and are also well placed facing the garden. The directly adjacent open space, especially with the dining table underneath, ensures that the children sit directly in a sound funnel. This can disturb falling asleep and cost privacy. Conversely, you will hear your children’s taste in music during their teenage years more strongly in the living area than might be desirable, and the children will also have less privacy with their guests. How you assess this I leave open – just good not to be surprised.
I think open space is great – if it serves living comfort, which I unfortunately do not see in your design.

2. Budget / Costs

If there are financial reserves, it can also get more expensive. If the budget is tight, I recommend not putting further thought into the design.

3. Dining area too tight
We will also try to optimize this in the next update.

Do not underestimate the acoustic living comfort. Sit at a show house table with a few people under an open space and "enjoy" the echo and sound. The effort to get this component under control must be considered in the architecture. We have quite a lot of open space and invested the equivalent of a small new car in acoustic optimization – and yet the dining table is not “outdoors” underneath – it’s simply much cozier.

4. No children’s bathroom
We discussed this point very extensively and consciously decided against it, nevertheless thank you for the hint.

We have two boys who did not exactly develop into fans of order and hygiene during puberty. We were glad to have our own bathroom at that time. One assumes one can solve a lot with upbringing – rebellion is systemic in puberty. We found it helpful to keep conflict areas structurally minimal. Possibly a new perspective.

6. Architect
We are in talks with interior architects; unfortunately, they are very busy.
Can you recommend architects / interior architects who would fit our building project?

Finding the right architect is much more a matter of “chemistry” than a matter of expertise. If an architect is eager to engage with you and is interested in how you want to live, you are almost at the goal. This may also include a methodological competence in supporting you to communicate your lifestyle preferences to create a holistic picture.

Otherwise:
Exits to the outside prove to be extremely practical for our habits of life. I can only encourage this.
A window seat is only enjoyed if it is super comfortable. Better to calculate this position generously.

Personal impression:
A detailed list of requirements was worked through in the planning of the floor plan. In many areas, I can understand the thoughts very well. Meanwhile, things that were not explicitly on the list were forgotten. Hallways became very large, acoustics received no consideration, space requirements for furniture were misjudged (dining table)... For many things, experience is indeed helpful, you can’t just add it quickly if it’s important to be good. Rather work on the non-functional requirements and talk to an architect.

I can never understand how someone can claim that a house is suitable for a lifetime.

I cannot understand not claiming this aspiration if one wishes it. Designing the future begins in thinking, and that needs no limits. Do not underestimate people’s imagination. Sometimes everyone says something is not possible – until someone comes along who does not accept this (or knows :p) and suddenly it is possible after all.

I would be interested to know what measures you have taken regarding the acoustics so that the airspace does not have too negative an impact on the adjacent rooms?

I would agree with your further comments.

Thank you very much :)