I am probably redundant here:
I. since post #16 I have given the OP the crucial hint of a well-founded suspicion of a fundamentally significant misplanning from the outset, which he has not even addressed for five cents;
II. in post #17 points out the error of omitting a controlled residential ventilation system (also a significant hint that I take up) and in a side remark mentions the cut potential of the seat window, which I also pick up on.
The following discussion on three pages mainly focuses on the (pseudo)seat window and at least justifies its misplanning; the contradiction between (fulfilled by what exactly?) Efficiency House Standard 40 and the incompatible ventilation concept is treated almost like decoration. My follow-up question ...
Why do you actually only address the part of my design criticism behind the comma?
… obviously does not refer to the punctuation mark of the same name, but to the comma in the mathematical sense, namely the complete disregard of my main point (whereby – what hopefully at least the other readers understood – it is not about a politely given answer to me, but in terms of the matter the OP’s engagement with the content of the hint for the sake of the still salvageable planning).
Only one HO place is needed.
Apparently not, see opening post:
I work full-time without home office and my wife currently does not either, but plans to work part-time in home office again in 1-2 years.
So he is already full-time now, and prospectively very soon both of them, without them disturbing each other. From three keywords (data protection, discretion, concentration) in my opinion, each alone is reason enough not to compete as two home workers for the guest room resource. Whether one can comfortably get past the small table corner to find the ice wind behind the glass backrest cozy when eating seems to me with all due respect to be secondary.
1. If the room concept leaves essential needs unsatisfied, it does not become better by putting wall and window locations on a fine scale (or even by laying out ceiling spots in a next thread).
2. If you left out the electric window lifters in a modern car, you might at least possibly still get hold of antiquarian retrofit crank motors or at worst manage to crank yourself sportily at the parking garage entrance barrier like grandpa. The controlled residential ventilation system in a new building is a somewhat different matter, especially in an EH40 new building where that is nonsense of the first order.
And even if it is only decentralized, because the house build itself is actually already too expensive for the income.
No, decentralized is a retrofit solution, and the certainly soon regretted omission is absolute number 1 in the category “dumbest ways to save 13k”.
3. A wife and her must-have on a remarkably short wish list with all due respect and a cat window cleverly recalculated in size 32/34 with an additional benefit alibi with all due respect (and it costs too little to be considered a war-decisive detail) – but whether that will really bring her the dreamed residential quality joy, I dare to doubt.
My impression is: the OP has – God knows how long – tinkered and now looks at his masterpiece with satisfaction. His expectation (and idea of helpful comments) is roughly that we would praise like the chef in the Frosta commercial: “Delicious! – but just a little more turmeric”. Encouraged by all sorts of offers according to which he can afford the masterpiece (and mistakenly considering a controlled residential ventilation system as a cost item of unknown benefit to him), he ignores every “Chance card: go back to start” comment with oblivious ears. As a grateful optimization suggestion, he would probably only perceive something like “put the light switch in the dressing room on the other side.” Too bad, I cannot serve that.