Location of city villa or single-family house on 500 m2 plot - rectangular

... it's about the superstructure of the lower risers on the ground floor, which becomes necessary on the upper floor to reach the parents' bedroom.

I know.
The planning would have to be calculated in detail anyway. I calculated 2.14m in my sketch (where you have 2.02m). I find that acceptable. If that's not enough, then the house will have to be deeper. It's probably a matter of a few centimeters.

Regarding variant 4 kukmada: – there recently illustrated the head height problem with overbuilt stair landings again.

Cool thanks, in a completely different design (the first interior floor plan from ), the site manager already pointed that out to me. However, there I had overbuilt half of the staircase, not just the first two steps. But thanks for the hint, I will emphasize that again when passing it on. Maybe one or two rows of bricks need to be built higher, at least at the bottom. We also discussed that already because the floor construction on the ground floor will be 25 cm. According to the construction specifications, the story height is only 275 cm. I said he should just calculate the possible additional costs with one or two rows in advance. Although we were again surprised in show homes how open a 2.5 m clear room height can feel. But it would be important for the stair landing after all.
What do you think, how much could one more row of bricks cost for a gross floor area of 88m²?

Maybe something might work there after all?

No, she meant behind the 5 m strip like here . But we had already excluded that quite early due to the non-buildability of the 5 m strip with outbuildings.
Besides, I would exclude that as well because then I would have to be further away from the access strip and there would be less and less garden left.

You absolutely wanted 3 children's rooms and now you are building only 2 that can be separated later?

When I drew it with three children's rooms and for each about 11.x up to a maximum of 12 m² came out (which is now the size of the kids' rooms and is considered too small), my wife said that the two planned children, who will be closer together, would then have to share one bigger room. So we are not planning according to your recommendation with one fewer child, but we are already anticipating infringement that we will impose on our descendants. We will also share the responsibility for the wrong decision with them, hopefully at an age where one can at least claim that they were aware of the consequences. They just have to be able to stand each other. If not, they will swap rooms with the oldest for a few weeks, then they will learn to appreciate it.

It would be much more elegant to divide the children's rooms 100% equitably in the middle and put up 2 walls later.

That's why not half and half, but asymmetrical, because the smaller (but now bigger than before) room can be where the oldest sleeps and the bigger one for two younger children who are more at a similar developmental stage.
I also imagine it is logistically easier if you only have to build one wall and maybe add a door than having to tear down/move an additional wall.

Putting a closet in the upstairs hallway, however, I consider nonsense. It's already too narrow there.

Storage space! – It won't be built in yet. So it can still be considered whether that fits or a narrow chest of drawers is more sensible. If the big room really gets divided sometime, a door has to go there anyway, then that won't be possible anymore.

You can partially place a wardrobe under the stairs, etc.

Yes, I also tend to think I would have something suitable built under the stairs. That was only for illustration now because in the program the stairs cover everything that should be underneath or above.

Above all, the living room door must open into the living room - otherwise there is immediately door chaos.

Ah, good point, I will take that into account. The living room does have a lot of space in that area.

I don't like the side entrance at all

If I ask for something specific now, you will probably write: everything! But if you had to name the top 3 points, what would they be? And do you find an aspect that you even like?

but there might still be other solutions.

That's what I'm after here!

Thanks and regards

Tolentino

With more height you achieve nothing at all, because then you need one more step... On the contrary. With less height you can omit a step. But hardly anyone builds with a ceiling height under 2.50m nowadays.

Floor height 275 cm? That does not result in a clear room height of 250 cm, and Katja has pointed out the rest.

I don’t find having these 2 children in the large children’s room and one in the smaller one all that great. Of course, that’s your business and if you want it that way, okay. But offering the children the choice between Skylla and Charybdis with the excuse that it’s their own choice is more of a mockery than an actual option.

You won’t achieve anything with more height, because then you need one more step...
On the contrary. With less height you can omit a step. But nowadays hardly anyone builds with ceiling heights under 2.50m.

Important note. Although with the same pitch the stairs would just be longer and not higher at the front.
Can you make the stairs "flatter" at the beginning and steeper at the end (after the bend)? Is that possible?