Floor plans - 183m² single-family house on a hillside

Development plan/restrictions: Yes
Living area: 183m²
Usable area: 68m²
Gross floor area: 360m²
Gross volume WH: 885cbm
Gross volume GH: 194cbm
Size of the plot: 964m²
Slope: Yes
Floor area ratio: 0.3
Floor space index: 0.5
Building window, building line and boundary: see attachments
Edge development: Garages/carports allowed
Number of floors: 1 full floor
Roof shape: Gable roof 20°-35°
Orientation
Maximum heights/limitations: Eaves height 6m above natural ground level

Client requirements:
Style, roof shape, building type: Gable roof, single-family house with basement, basement/lower floor, ground floor, attic
Number of persons, age: 2 adults 35, 33; 2 children 3, 3;
Room requirements on ground floor, upper floor, basement
Office: Family use or home office?: Family use/partly home office
Open kitchen, kitchen island: Yes
Number of dining seats: 6-8 seats
Fireplace: Yes
Balcony, roof terrace: Yes
Garage, carport: Double garage

House design:
Who planned it:
- Architect: Yes
- Do-it-yourself: SweetHome3D
Price estimate according to architect/planner: €440,000 without own work
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment: €400,000 for everything including own work
Preferred heating technology: Air-water heat pump (with ventilation system - still unclear)

Why is the design the way it is now?: First drafts created myself then implemented/optimized by the architect.
Standard design from the planner?: No

I would very much appreciate criticism/feedback/suggestions from you! Thank you very much in advance

Regards Alex

First of all, I largely like the design. The building is clearly structured, proportioned, and articulated and seems to follow the terrain well.

In the drawings, there seem to be some inconsistencies to me: in the floor plan, there are two dormers, but only one in the side views; the chimney also seems to end at the living room ceiling. Load-bearing walls appear to be a neglected aspect of this design: I would consider one suitable on the entrance floor, which, however, on the one hand is weakened by niches and on the other hand would have to rest on a beam in the floor below. The lateral projection of the roof terrace is "too much to die for and too little to live on"; you cannot squeeze through this bowling alley even with a broom. Regarding the children's rooms, I would need cross-sectional drawings to be convinced that they function as intended. However, the dormers as depicted here will, in any case, be cut in one of the next revisions before they have to be translated into execution drawings. Without having measured, it seems to me that the roof pitch of max. 35° has been slightly exceeded here?

Overall, I would say: "a pity for the beautiful design." It already looks convincingly coherent. But especially with such young children, in my opinion, the room layout with children's rooms two floors above the living and cooking areas is a misconception.

Nice, with some good approaches, structurally, as mentioned, pleasantly clear, but still much work to be done.

I look forward to a constructive discussion and estimate your finish line at about the two-hundredth contribution.

Thank you very much for the extensive feedback! As you have already correctly recognized, the draft is certainly not yet final, and the structural engineer has not yet addressed the matter. The so-called bowling alley by the roof terrace definitely requires a thorough revision. The dormers/gable windows will be looked at more closely during the execution planning – but the fact is that they are necessary to achieve appropriate room sizes. According to the architect, the roof pitch should be fine – I might ask specifically about this again. Yes, the room program is one topic where we simply had to make compromises. The premise was to accommodate the living room in the basement, as the access/view to the garden and adjacent forest is, in my opinion (given the circumstances), a must. We also did not want to leave the roof terrace to the children on the ground floor – therefore, accommodating the children on the top floor was the only "reasonable" solution. Once again, many thanks for the feedback!

Yes, the spatial program is one topic where we simply had to make compromises.

How should it have looked without compromises?

The premise was to accommodate the living room in the basement, since in my opinion (given the conditions) the access/view to the garden and adjacent forest is a must here.

I agree with that.

We also did not want to leave the roof terrace to the children on the ground floor – therefore, accommodating the children on the top floor was the only "reasonable" solution.

Exactly, now it is an accommodation. It looks to me as if the building envelope also allows for a flat roof extension above the living room. Perhaps even with a lookout from the bedroom on the top floor. Bedrooms handle being located at the end of the spatial program better than children’s rooms do – at least with a living area "at the other end." I would want to minimize the mileage between the living and children’s areas.

The compromise in the room arrangement could be one reason why I perceive the design more as a very successful renovation of a house originally built in the 70s rather than as a new build.

I would plan the children on the ground floor and the parents under the roof. I would also place the washing machine and dryer on the ground floor with the children. Both minimize walking distances. Living, dining, cooking in the basement I also find right. The rooms belong to the garden.

Thank you very much for your feedback. The room arrangement came about, among other things, because the children - especially due to their age - should not have their rooms "alone" on the ground floor - front door, garage & roof terrace are, in my opinion, still too great "sources of danger" to leave them unattended overnight and during the day. The distance between the attic and the living area is, of course, an argument... a flat roof extension on the ground floor was rejected by our architect for aesthetic reasons, although we had this idea as well. What is the status of the concept of the hallway on the ground floor and the direct access to the roof terrace?