Floor plan options single-family house 130-150 sqm, 1.5 stories, hillside location

We are less keen on this "we just walk once around the house to sneak in at the back" hillside construction method.

You would have only just invented that yourself: basement entrances on slopes are more common when the valley side is also the street side (which seems to be the case here). Whether it is really brilliant to use the "gifted" north garden exit exactly where the entrance is coincidentally planned on the otherwise differently oriented catalog model, I mark with a question mark.

At least I think I have finally figured out your confusing mess of drawings: you apparently compare two catalog models with similar floor plans from two different manufacturers ("Economy" = Danhaus, "desired" = **?**, name that one), but unfortunately their layouts are only similar (so combining the "ground floor" of X and the "upper floor" of Y would effectively again be "individually planned"); which one does the depicted "basement" belong to?

Have you not found any model intended for the south-street orientation? – by the way, I find it questionable to base flat plot designs on a residential basement. However, I thank you in this context for the inspiration derived for me to include such cases in the range of my planning coachings :)

I naively assumed that the wooden cladding was just decorative without function (at most, it could save something during plastering if done by experts), so that no damage could come from it (it’s "just decoration"). With Economy manufacturers, it would probably simply be attached over the normal plastered wall – but since cladding is ventilated anyway, the only weak point would be the fastenings themselves – I assumed this was a run-of-the-mill job where nothing could go wrong, but if that is not the case, I gladly take that on and will fall back on your suggestion if necessary:
Another alternative would be to strike such a "Maybach from Dacia" off the list ;-)
Pathetically sad, but if the budget forces us to Economy, then it has to be that way.

Firstly: far from it, my dear! – there you have mistakenly thrown "run-of-the-mill" and "trick 17" into the same pot. The "only weak point fastening" is exactly the ignition switch for the explosive charge here. Even if the counter battens were screwed so that battens of the timber frame wall would always be “hit,” the violation of, for example, a vapor barrier would not be inconsequential or harmless. Leaving out a plaster layer might not help either. So you need a supplier who already takes this into account during the design. For this reason, I see the "manufacturers" from the selection falling out and consequently, secondly, you better have to choose a "craftsman" (like the shrub carpenter or Wirlebenhaus or similar) as a suitable supplier.

You would have just invented those: basement entrances are more common on slopes when the valley side is also the street side (as is probably the case here). However, whether it is really a great idea to take the "gifted" north garden exit exactly where the entrance is accidentally planned on the catalog model otherwise oriented the other way around, I mark with a question mark.

In my search for used houses, this has always struck me negatively: the main entrance is almost always around the corner of the house, at most the entrance to the granny flat was at mid-level (mostly on the side), and then – oh wonder – it was mostly also used by the main residents for convenience. We wanted to avoid that mistake ;)

At least I think I have finally figured out your confusing jumble of drawings: you are apparently comparing two similarly laid out catalog models from two different manufacturers ("Economy" = Danhaus, "Wunsch" = **?**, name it), whose layouts are unfortunately only similar (so combining “ground floor” of X and “upper floor” of Y would actually be “custom designed” again); of which one is the depicted “basement”?

Sorry, I am slowly realizing that after spending so much time on it we read the plans quite differently (mentally removing or adding things or no longer seeing things we have already discussed, etc.) – but you obviously do not know anything about this – my mistake, I see now how poor it was. I thought it would be simplifying to take catalog examples because I wonder whether our own drawings would meet the requirements better?

In fact, nothing from the "Wunsch" category is included, because there were usually at least somewhat individually created designs by architects, and it feels wrong to show these online without compensation and consent – but this is about the category "ZimmerMeisterHaus" (there are local partners for the nationwide label), whereas the above floor plans come from Danwood and Rensch-Haus; I do not know Danhaus yet.

Economy 1: Danwood: approx. 290k for the house (including approx. 40k "necessary" upgrades (laminate and carpet out) etc.)
Economy 2: Rensch-Haus: approx. 350k for the house
And, planned significantly more minimally, category ZimmerMeisterHaus: at least €410k upwards for a smaller but much nicer house (wood facade, exposed wooden beam ceilings, but no controlled residential ventilation – which does not actually bother us but is often recommended for new builds here).

These are differences where you quickly think to take the Dacia Dokker with every optional extra rather than the Mercedes A-Class in minimum configuration and hope nothing goes wrong. The Dacia is allowed to have a few issues and it is still okay.

Did you not find any model(s) intended for south street orientation? – incidentally, I find it questionable to place flat lot designs on a residential basement. However, I thank you in this context for the inspiration I derive to include such cases in my range of planning coaching :)

You’re welcome :D
Well, I don’t quite see why these floor plans should not fit – they are oriented southwest, just as it would be desirable on a south slope – or correspond quite well with the basic idea of somewhat more individual architect designs (position of stairs and arrangement of rooms).

Firstly: far from it, my dear! – you seem to have mistakenly lumped together "run-of-the-mill" and "trick 17." The “only weak point fastening” is exactly the ignition button for the detonation. Even if the sub-lathing were screwed so that struts of the timber frame wall panels were always “hit,” violating, for example, a vapor barrier would not be insignificant or without consequence. Omitting a plaster layer might not help either. So you need a provider who already takes this into account in the construction. Because of this, I see the “manufacturers” fall out of the selection among providers and therefore secondly you better have to choose a “craftsman” (such as the Staudenschreiner or Wirlebenhaus or similar) as a suitable provider.

Thank you, eyes opened, we will include this among the downsides of economy providers and better avoid it then.

Sorry, it is slowly becoming clear to me that through prolonged engagement we read the plans very differently (thinking things away or adding them in or not seeing things anymore that we have already long discussed, etc.) – but you can’t possibly know anything about that – my mistake, I now see how bad it was.

Good that it’s at least becoming clear to you now – to many others, it feels like "never": we may be "the Internet" ;-) but we still cannot read minds.

I thought it would be easier to take catalog examples, as I wondered whether the own drawings would better meet the requirements?

So you didn’t actually want to build with the example manufacturers, but just borrowed images out of sheer lack of confidence in your own drawing skills that only share the room layout with the actual building intention? – do at least the approximate exterior dimensions "match"?

In fact, nothing is from the category "Wunsch" because there usually were at least somewhat individually created things by architects there, and it feels a bit wrong to show those online without compensation and consent – but it is about the category "ZimmerMeisterHaus" (there are corresponding local partners for the nationwide label), whereas the above floor plans come from Danwood and Rensch-Haus, I don’t know Danhaus so far.

Haha, I wasn’t fully with my thoughts there, I already had dinner on the stove. Then I’ll write "Scanwood" on another occasion to make up for it *LOL*
So my assumptions were again mistaken that Rensch-Haus (the brown floor plans) would represent the catalog model of the "Wunsch" provider. Good, we’ve clarified that as well.

Well, it’s not quite clear to me why these floor plans shouldn’t fit – after all, they are oriented southwest, just as would be desirable on a south-facing slope – and they do correspond to the basic idea quite well of the somewhat more individual architect designs (position of the stairs and arrangement of the rooms).

My surprise at your choice of the basic catalog designs was directed at another aspect, disregarding the cardinal orientation of the room layouts: namely that you selected precisely those whose standard ground floor entrances face away from the street.

Thank you, eyes opened, we’ll include that in the disadvantages of the economy providers and will better avoid it there.

These especially apply to the timber frame panel builders; not to the (monolithic) brick builders, even though I personally would also not want to "bother" the mass-/economy providers like Gabriele’s favorite Heinz with this façade wish.

These are just differences where you quickly think about taking the Dacia Dokker with every optional feature instead of the Mercedes A-Class in minimum configuration and hope that nothing goes wrong. The Dacia can have a few problems and it’s still okay.

Both the Dacia "with everything" (as the kebab salesman says) and the Mercedes in "official configuration" are not marketable in resale.
How do you actually want to build now: with your own architect (which I would prefer), or with a catalog design of a (brick, timber or no preference) builder that is varied as little as possible (and if so, more by room swapping than by moving walls)?
I primarily see two critical points speaking against catalog designs here: 1. the incorporation of the slope location instead of tucking in a basement under a "finished" flat plot design; 2. the consideration of access (entrance and house connections!) via a street on the "wrong" side. I don’t see any catalog design as more cost-effective than a custom design in these respects.

Rensch house for the price? Did you end up with Clou? You get a high-quality house there, but the equipment is very limited. If these builder days still exist, take a look around and ask your advisor if you can go to the sampling exhibition. There you can see what is available and what is included. We really have no high demands; we would not have gotten along with Clou. I would prefer a Mercedes with minimal equipment over a Dacia with maximum equipment. Even with minimal equipment, a Mercedes still has the quality features of Mercedes behind it. With Dacia, you might not even find all the minimal equipment components of Mercedes in the price list. In addition, there are things that laypeople do not see. In the car, it’s the bodywork; in the house, it’s the wall construction or in the construction performance description.

So you didn’t actually want to build with the example manufacturers, but just borrowed images out of sheer lack of confidence in your own drawing skills, which only share the room layout with your actual building wish? – at least do the approximate external dimensions "match"?

You can hardly say I wanted to, but after the initial shocks regarding the estimated costs, alternatives had to be obtained at least for decision-making purposes – and so far Danwood and Rensch-Haus seem to be the most realistic, the external dimensions also match, at least if we build Economy (otherwise smaller).

My surprise regarding your selection of the base catalog designs, without considering the cardinal directions of the room locations, concerned another aspect: namely that you picked precisely those which have their standard ground floor entrances facing away from the street.

Since the entrance is supposed to be in the basement (cellar), any entrance facing the street would block valuable south side – accordingly, catalog designs were deliberately chosen with both stairs and entrance on the north side – basically, if freely planned it would probably come down to a similar variant but would save the exit towards the north for cost reasons.

These apply mainly to timber frame builders; not to the (monolithic) stone builders, even though personally I wouldn’t “bother” mass/Economy providers like Gabriele’s favorite Heinz with this facade wish either.

Monolithic construction was quickly ruled out after even a very “doubtful” provider like Town & Country played in the upper price segment – we can only judge the sales structure, but it seemed “cheap” and yet was not.

Both the Dacia "with everything" (as the kebab guy says) and the Mercedes in "official equipment" are not marketable on resale.

Although one must also ask what besides the walls themselves should make a difference in the equipment – visually you will see the coverings and sanitary facilities, which of course can also be chosen with the Dacia (meaning for us: plaster instead of textured wallpaper, parquet instead of laminate/carpet). Technical gimmicks (controlled residential ventilation, etc.) are precisely standard at Economy manufacturers.

So how do you actually want to build: with your own architect (which I would prefer) or a catalog design of a (stone, timber or no preference) builder varied as little as possible (and if so, rather by swapping rooms than moving walls)?

Sure, if money played no role everyone dreams of a custom architect house. But on the one hand people are not as different and individual as they often think (therefore: why shouldn’t one be satisfied with a standard house?), and on the other hand we want to keep the project financially manageable and have already noticed that we have to lower demands – not that I know, but an architect’s plan seems to contradict both the goal of a lower financial range and its stable delimitation – not to mention the further organization.

I see here mainly two critical points speaking against catalog designs: 1. the inclusion of the hillside location instead of shifting a basement under a “finished” flat plot design; 2. the consideration of the access (entrance and house connections!) via a street on the “wrong” side. I don’t see any catalog design being more economical than an individual plan here.

I probably still have quite a learning need here – I’m trying to educate myself further in parallel. However, the access is supposed to run directly to the street via the basement.

Rensch-Haus for the price? Did you end up at Clou?
You get a high-quality house, but the equipment is very limited. If these building owner days still exist, take a look around and ask your advisor if you can enter the sampling exhibition. There you can see what is available and what is included. We really have no high demands; we wouldn’t have managed with Clou.

Yes, actually Clou – what would have bothered you? If the floor plan fits, there would be no advantages with Live either – with such providers you usually have to upgrade the visible interior finishes (here especially plastered walls and floor coverings). Rensch-Haus would at least be a provider that insulates diffusion-open and with wood fiber instead of polystyrene – that would be worth some extra cost compared to Danwood.

How wide is the [Grundstück] on the street?