New construction as a semi-detached house (adjacent to existing building) on a small plot with a slope

Hello,

we (currently a family of four) are developing a very small building gap in our dream location, which brings some challenges. We have spent a long time tinkering with the attached floor plan and are generally satisfied. Since it comes from us as laypeople, we are considering having it revised by an architect, but we are unsure if it is worthwhile. As a first step, we would really appreciate your feedback!!

On the east side of the building, we are building flush with an existing house, so this side dimension as well as height and roof pitch are predetermined. We have chosen the other side dimension to the maximum according to the setback distances to the property boundary. (Note: the room markings in the graphic “Section” are no longer up to date)

Another special feature is that the street level (north side) is somewhat higher than the garden level (south side). We thought a long time about split-level solutions or simply one less floor, but then decided against it to preserve as much living space as possible.

The consequence was that living and dining are on two different floors, which is the main sticking point of the project. It would certainly be nicer on one floor! In return, you get quite large rooms. We decided on cooking/dining "upstairs" because we only use the living room from the afternoon in daily life, meaning you simply do not have to go all the way downstairs in the morning. To understand the plan: From the kitchen, you go up on the right side, down on the left, where the staircase then leads outside the stairwell to the left directly open into the living room.

We are really very curious about your opinions!!!


Flush extension to an existing semi-detached house
(Extension side is the east side of the building with 9.99 m)

Plot size: 259 sqm
Slope: 140cm difference from north (street, higher) to south (terrace)
Building size: 9.99 x 8.73
Number of floors: see section -> basement with terrace access/north side cellar rooms, ground floor with street access via house entrance stairs, upper floor, attic
Number of parking spaces: 1
Roof shape: gable roof 45°
Style: semi-detached house, townhouse
Heights: eaves height 9.24m, ridge height 13.2m above street

Client requirements
Number of persons, age: 2 adults, 2 children (0 + 3 years), 3rd child possible
Office: necessary, usage about 2 hours/day
Kitchen: open with cooking island
Number of dining seats: 6
Fireplace: planned in the living room under the stairs
Roof terrace: desirable as an alternative to a very small garden area
Carport with storage room desired
Sitting window in dining room desired
Laundry and drying room desired on upper floor
Study planned as possible 3rd child’s room: study can then be used as a basement room in the eastern cellar room

House design
Who created the plan: own idea, implemented by a planner of a construction company
Cost estimate according to planner: 350K
Personal price limit for the house, incl. equipment: 350K
Preferred heating technology: gas condensing boiler, water-bearing fireplace

If you had to give up, on which details/extensions
-can you do without: dormer in attic
-can you not do without: sitting window, utility room on upper floor, connection between basement and ground floor e.g. via gallery

Why did the design turn out as it is now?
The big challenge was the many floors. The core goal was to “feel” connected living and dining even though they are on two different floors. With the gallery and stairs, this has been achieved, we hope.
Which wishes were implemented? Wish for a parents’ floor, three rooms on the floor below plus utility room, open kitchen with island, half-landing stairs.
What makes it in your eyes particularly good or bad? View from dining room into greenery, gallery as a special feature, large living room with fireplace under/in the stairs.

What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Do you see planning or conceptual errors or weaknesses in practical or aesthetic terms?
Where do you see alternatives or optimizations?
Have we forgotten a “must-have”?

since we only use the living room from the afternoon in everyday life, meaning you simply don't have to go all the way downstairs in the morning.

The small misconception that has a big impact: When the garden or terrace is used, the living room is not used, but rather the dining room and the kitchen. The daily work is done in the kitchen as well as on the terrace in summer. When you sit in the garden, you swap the dining area inside with the terrace outside. When grilling in the evening, you need the kitchen nearby. On days with kids in the garden -> kitchen, on mild summer evenings -> kitchen, when mowing the lawn -> kitchen. The general daily routine connects kitchen and terrace. The living room only comes into play at night or under completely different weather conditions, namely to cuddle or watch TV. What would be the consequence of the consideration: placing kitchen and dining area next to the terrace, i.e. swapping the living room and kitchen. I would mix the floors and even consider whether the living room should go upstairs and the ground floor belong to the children...

The little misconception that causes big effects:
When the garden or the terrace is used, the living room is not used, but the dining room and the kitchen. The daily work is done in the kitchen as well as in summer on the terrace. When sitting in the garden, you swap the indoor dining area with the outdoor terrace. When grilling in the evening, you need the kitchen nearby. On children's days in the garden -> kitchen, on mild summer evenings -> kitchen, when mowing the lawn -> kitchen. The general daily work connects the kitchen and the terrace. The living room only comes into play after dark or in completely different weather conditions, namely to cuddle or watch TV.
What would be the consequence of the consideration: putting the kitchen and dining area next to the terrace, i.e., swapping the living room and kitchen.

Full agreement. I also do not like the division across floors for practical reasons. Such a division would be a deal-breaker for me.
Kitchen and dining must be on terrace level.

Since it comes from us as laymen, we are considering having it revised again with an architect, but we are unsure whether that is worthwhile.

For laymen it already looks quite neat and it is definitely worth revising, but only later. The specialist should do a bit more than just "revise", so don’t go too far with the interface, i.e. let him build on this (even if drawn out graphically, but still rather) sketch stage, instead of distilling it too far. I also fear there are still incorrect assumptions in the basics.

On the east side of the building we are building flush against an existing house, so that this side measurement as well as height and roof pitch are predetermined.

On the one hand, that would very much follow my mantra, on the other hand I would still like to give the note: if this is not explicitly required in the development plan (or the design statute), then the house profile of the other half is not so strictly "law", so your framework may be more generous.

Do you see planning or conceptual errors or weaknesses in practical or aesthetic terms?

That is currently difficult for me to assess:

(Note: the room markings in the "section" graphic are no longer up to date)

That makes it difficult to imagine the house in "3D" if these plans are not congruent. I see the roof terrace at least as a challenge structurally, but also in terms of insulation and water drainage as well as all the corresponding height-related adjustments that come with them, to put it mildly. I am quite sure I don’t believe in the dormer in the bedroom so close to the house dividing wall.

To understand the plan: from the kitchen you go up on the right side, down on the left, where the staircase then leads outside the stairwell to the left directly open into the living room.

Whether this through-door solution is really the real deal, I am more than hesitant. It is at least very far from "keep it simple, stupid".

What kind of infill plot is this: was the twin never there, or was it demolished and the lot cleared?

For a long time we thought about split-level solutions or simply one floor less,

In this point I would most likely orient myself towards the twin - what does it (and its plot) look like in section?

As usual, my reading recommendation regarding a similar situation: (somewhat different house size, but also lower garden, similar roof pitch and also a bit of staircase fiddling).

Dining area and kitchen to the terrace Living room to the roof terrace? You don't really use them if they are only accessible through the bedroom. Split-level would be something. Why did you discard it? The walk-in closet doesn't have much storage due to the slant. Take a closer look at that. Utility room accessed through the children's bathroom could lead to bottlenecks

There will hardly be any more if you do not speak up and comment on it.
A plan that does not seem sensible in broad terms does not need to be discussed in fine tuning.