Ground plan design single-family house 165 sqm without basement on 400 sqm plot

Just reread what I wrote - I meant the ground floor - the layout of the ground floor is almost identical to that of friends.

Edit: Everyone has their own ideas. If a straight staircase is your dream, you have to plan around it, with all the consequences.
I'm glad that with my double-spiral staircase the wall catches me if I trip at the top. :cool:

Allegedly, people are more likely to stumble on curved stairs, so it is good that there is a wall to catch you. :D

We do not necessarily want a straight staircase.

It is the other way around, a curved staircase is not our dream at all.

Hm. I don’t quite understand the open-ended construction method.
The construction method, even the look and color, is relatively strictly prescribed here by the development plan.

The development plan may not prescribe the choice of a timber frame panel construction. An “open-ended determination” of the suitable construction method means sending the preliminary draft for a rough price estimate to two masons and two carpenters. If the result of the responses is a price ladder, for example S-S--H--H (S for stone, H for wood, - for the price gap), it shows that economically it makes more sense to build with a mason, H-S---H--S* could also be a result. From this, conclusions are drawn which flow into the design planning. If, for example, it turns out in an individual case that it is better to go with a wooden house, then despite pleasant “chemistry,” the decision not to continue with a stone-focused architect might be considered. That is why I always say: NO fixed determination of the construction method before the “dough rest” phase. By the way, I tell this to all clients, both multi-family house investors and owner-builder families. The latter usually take a lot longer to understand this.
*) The selection of inquiry recipients obviously requires experience; here a DIY person can easily make mistakes, for example by unskillfully selecting participants and thus “distorting” the ranking and price gaps: Scanhaus Marlow and Baufritz for example would be two wooden builders, between which almost any masons could easily fit.

By the way, this was exactly the plan according to which I got the recommendation here. It is not an internal planner of a supplier. Independent architect. Larger office, not a one-man show. There was also a site inspection. No plan examples were presented beforehand that we liked.

Anything else in the stairway, if it helps, is conceivable.

But this was presumably not stated clearly enough, so that the architect chose a single-flight straight stairway. A two-flight stairway – here mostly called a “landing stair” – would be considerably better. A single-flight straight stairway acts as a barrier over its entire run within a floor plan, which in relation to the house depth or width usually corresponds to about half (+/-) of it. It thus practically divides the floor plan like a river with crocodiles separating two banks. In addition, it creates three to four square meters of additional hallway space per floor due to circulation area plus extra space in the rooms that are forced into a suboptimal position by it. On the other floor one comes out at the other end of the stairway, whereas with a two-flight straight stairway one comes out almost at the same spot where one started, offset by about one meter. This means that the traffic distribution points on ground and upper floors then lie almost on top of each other, while with the single-flight straight stairway they are shifted over its entire length. Together with the bad habit of many (not only amateur) planners to begin with the ground floor, the single-flight straight stairway becomes a devil’s work for the floor plans. By the way, a large architecture office is usually a disadvantage for a single-family house, and an individual architect is usually the better choice.

I also want to elaborate a bit, even if this is again interpreted as a defense of an unsuccessful floor plan idea. So be it. :)
A little background is sometimes not bad.

I would have found this background – with a listing of specific example points – most helpful in the section “What do you not like? Why?” of the questionnaire. After all, it makes up a large part of the planning motives here. If thus explained, one wouldn’t have to defend a floor plan anymore – although that’s not disgraceful either. Objectively, what is bad about this design especially is that the broom closet next to the garage means the bedroom lacks sufficient hallway width in front of the bed. That is where I most understand ’s doubts about the quality of the planner. Other details catch my eye more, but this design is “trash” anyway. However, there is no use in beating up on it specifically; a new attempt should simply be as thoroughly “new” as possible.

Yo. Thanks. Very detailed and understandable. I have now understood the construction method. Building with wood is more our preference. When building something like this, you can still do things the way you want and not necessarily how the experts say, right? Podesttreppe is absolutely welcome. No objections.

Building with wood is more our wish. When undertaking such a construction, you can still do it somewhat the way you want and not necessarily as the expert opinion dictates, right?

If the wish for a particular construction method explicitly also applies in cases where it would be the more expensive way in the specific case, then my suggestion for an open-ended inquiry of results does not apply of course, and three providers are sufficient for orientation. Here I also see little potential. Conversely, stone construction enthusiasts could learn from a design with many projections and recesses, for example, that these would be more affordably realizable with wood.

Yep, that was the plan. 3 comparison offers. Regarding projections and recesses. I'm not a fan of them, to be honest. A properly designed façade, in my opinion, doesn't need fancy bay windows.... But well. I don't want to completely close myself off to it.