Prefabricated wooden house provider for single-family homes in Lower Saxony

Many thanks for your feedback!

- Entrance has no roof.

Was/Is aware to us as a problem. We once had a variant where the entrance was recessed (see attachment). From the outside, that looked strange again. We are now considering simply attaching a plain rain protection on the outside of the facade. The 60 cm roof overhang is probably not sufficient?

- Cloakroom/hallway is somewhat divided, but you can get used to it

It was literally separated by a door in the first draft, as you can see in the attachment.

- Dining table is quite cheekily drawn at 1.50. The architect should at least use 1.80; if not, then 2.00 or, for larger families or much dining guests, 2.40 should be possible.

The 1.50 m corresponds to our current dining table, which we extend when we have visitors.

- Also, the bay window in the dining area does not hit the center (as seen from outside); okay, maybe I’m just a perfectionist.

It bothers me much more on the north side than on the south, but unfortunately you can’t argue it away.

- There is a sofa planned in the bay window. Basically consider who would want to rub their back against the window bars or cold surfaces there.

A window seat is planned in the bay window, not a sofa. Not practical?

- Living room: How do you watch TV with the furniture arrangement without twisting your neck?

Not at all. We are happy without a TV. Next to the south window there is a piano. Opposite is an organ.

- Little kitchen, little storage space. Sitting like hens on a perch already didn’t work as planned in the 2000s.
With the seating positions, the main access to the terrace is also obstructed.

Without going into kitchen planning details: Would you say that the kitchen is basically suboptimally planned as a room in terms of its dimensions, or is it only the current layout that is flawed? Our only requirement for the kitchen was, besides being separated from the living room, that four people can have a quick, space-saving breakfast there in the morning.

- When I read that the doors are closed when cooking, then you somehow cannot get to the terrace at all?

You can also get out the back through the living room.

- The children's bathroom on the upper floor has a 73 cm door... next to it there is no place for a light switch, the shower is still 90 cm raw dimension, so effectively 80 cm?
- There is no bathtub

Good point. I hadn’t noticed that yet. The narrow children's bathroom is also due to the development of the plan. We originally didn’t want an additional room on the upper floor. Therefore, the guest room in the first draft was the children's bathroom. The current children's bathroom was a laundry room. Since we spend relatively little time in the bathroom, the proportion of bathroom area to the total house area seemed somewhat oversized to us, so the children's bathroom then moved into the laundry room and the laundry room moved to the basement. No shower is, like no TV, a conscious decision. In your opinion, can this problem be solved? Light switch outside? Or motion sensor?

There are now two spare rooms, unfortunately I don’t recall if home office plays any role at all,

Not a classic home office. But evening and weekend work does. For that, however, one spare room would suffice.

Personally, I would probably prefer the main room to be one meter wider for 4 people rather than having an extra floor.
But with, for example, a floor area ratio of 0.2, that can get pretty tight.

I’m also getting more used to that idea. That might also solve the symmetry problem. The floor area ratio is 0.25. I will calculate that.

I'll try—summarized instead of chronological—in a whirlwind to respond to various interjections, and then to the design methodology:

I can tell you how the exterior facade looks: completely crooked. I wouldn’t want it like that.

I always say "symmetry is (substitute) aesthetics for people with proportion dyslexia (and as a non-value in itself excellently dispensable)." However, the "deadliest combination" is to distribute asymmetrically placed wall openings with similarly sized elements across the facade.

Hmm, with a 36.5 cm exterior wall (with clinker) I’m really curious about the intended exterior wall construction… (especially with HRB)… [...] 36.5 sounds monolithic to me at first. So no clinker. With insulation and an air layer it gets thicker too, hence the question.

The architect plans stone-construction-typical wall thicknesses (as an alleged construction method neutrality) with the original reasoning that on average the wall thicknesses of timber frame builders are similar. Unfortunately, the result sits on two chairs, since she plans with Pippi Longstocking measurements, thus neither caring about the octameter grid of stone construction nor the de facto construction grid of timber construction. Stone-building-wise, it would then swarm with botched pockets, and in timber construction just as many replacements would have to be made this way. With a facing shell, the caliber 365 as an approximate reference dimension—whether stone or HRB—cannot even remotely be maintained, and a miss by nearly 10 cm greater wall thickness is pre-programmed.

Yes, there again is the error mentioned by 11ant of a design planning not adapted to the type of construction.

Laypersons can roughly understand it put like that.

We initially wanted a 1.5-story house with a gabled roof. The architect then recommended 2 full stories, as a more flexibly usable upper floor. We find the usual square town villas with flat hipped roofs aesthetically rather creepy and therefore suggested a more rectangular shape with bay windows and a steeper roof with which we are quite satisfied as of today regarding appearance. [...] A redesign should definitely still be possible at this stage. That we will pay a bit of tuition fees with the project in the end was to be expected.

This or something like it is how a typical naive design exegesis runs. This naive approach may be sympathetic, but for that I wouldn't go to a professional. From her, I expect that she explains to the client of her planning service the counterproposal of a professional approach. Methodical planning is indeed the most effective prophylactic medicine against otherwise almost predictably resulting redesigns. The tuition fee here is the fee for an extra round of the design planning including the time spent by all involved.

It does bother me. I can’t yet say whether it bothers me so much that I start the planning all over again. The asymmetry of the sides is 89 cm. If you increase on the left by this length, the house has 8.2 sqm more area and costs about 30k € more + the costs of redesign. In the guest WC downstairs the window could be placed centrally, in the upper floor the current bathroom layout lacks 7 cm. Functionally, a bathroom 89 cm wider with the current layout on the upper floor probably doesn’t bring much. Impact on the ground plan on the ground floor: no idea.

Notably, the time wasted also belongs to the costs of redesign. Impact on the ground plan of the ground floor if you start with the upper floor and on all floor plans if you conceptually proceed with staircase location and roof shape: priceless.

Our lifestyle habits are probably relatively average in the end, meaning we would have been happy with a proven standard floor plan of some prefab house provider as well. The main reason for the architect was mainly to have a uniform basis for offer comparison.

Then nothing besides exactly what was the core of the goal was missed.

Requirements for the design were: 2 roughly equally sized children’s rooms on the upper floor, separate children’s bathroom, study with space for 2 desks on the ground floor, no open living-dining-kitchen area or the option to visually and olfactorily separate the kitchen from the living/dining area, sauna in the parents’ bathroom and a sitting window facing south in the living room.

This finally reads here like usable foundations for a design development, though I am never tired of repeating that "equal-sized rooms for equally beloved children" is parental thinking usually neither voiced nor appreciated by those affected. Triggers for the complaint of feeling unfairly treated compared to siblings are always found and are not irritated by facts. Moreover, the youngsters themselves have totally different criteria for what makes a great children's room.

Our idea was that the kitchen sliding door is closed a few times a week for cooking and is otherwise mostly open. The door to the living room might really be better as double doors. I somehow can’t quite assess what is more practical there yet.

Such Hamlet questions should have been discussed by a professional with the builders _before_ starting with drawings.

Would the house therefore have had to be planned entirely differently after the first draft? Maybe. [...] It was literally separated by one door, as you can see in the attachment, even in the first draft.

When I already read "first draft," I get curlers in the nape hair. First, second, third, forty-seventh drafts are exactly what comes like the "amen" in church when the development stage "preliminary draft" is omitted.

The narrow children’s bathroom is also due to the plan development. We originally didn’t actually want an additional room on the upper floor. That’s why the guest room on the first draft was the children’s bathroom. The current children’s bathroom was a laundry room. Since we spend relatively little life time in the bathroom, the bathroom portion of the total area of the house seemed a bit oversized to us, so the children’s bathroom then moved into the laundry room and the laundry room moved to the basement. No shower is a conscious decision, just like no TV. Do you think it’s possible to solve the problem? Light switch outside? Or motion sensor?

See above.

Our only requirement for the kitchen was, besides separation from the living room, that four people can breakfast briefly there in a space-saving manner in the morning.

How is a redundant breakfast spot supposed to save space? — I read a contradiction there.

Not at all. We are happy without TV. Next to the south window there is a piano. Opposite an organ.

No piano without a zigzag wall (see )!

The architect plans stone construction typical wall thicknesses (as supposed construction method neutrality) with the original justification that on average the wall thicknesses of timber frame panel builders are similar. Unfortunately, the result sits on the fence, since she plans with Pippi Longstocking measurements, thus neither caring about the eight-meter grid of stone construction nor the de facto construction grid of timber construction. As a result, stone constructions would be teeming with botched pockets, and in timber construction countless replacements would have to be made in this way. With a facing shell, the caliber 365 as an approximate reference measurement – whether stone or timber frame construction – cannot even be remotely adhered to, and a deviation of almost 10 cm extra wall thickness is preprogrammed.

With all due respect, that is quite nonsense.

The architect precisely plans in timber stud construction and queries the desired energy efficiency in advance. The measure of the wall thickness is the common average value, which is absolutely sufficient for a provider comparison. Every manufacturer has slightly different widths here. In part, even within a single manufacturer, you can choose between different wall constructions. An HS door requires a different wall thickness again, and so on... That’s just what a provider comparison entails.

In any case, from our planning nothing had to be adjusted. We received everything exactly as we had planned and at an absolutely attractive price.

If you want to build in stone, then you should communicate this accordingly in advance. But even then a change is possible. Just last week I had a conversation where after the building permit the general contractor was changed because the timber builder could not offer an appointment for sample selection due to Corona times.

That is, with all due respect, quite nonsense.

Unfortunately not – as much as I wish your likeable architect that you are nevertheless satisfied with her. But I cannot recommend her to 90% of my advisees, precisely because of this approach.

The architect simply plans in timber frame construction and asks in advance about the desired energy efficiency. The measure of the wall thickness is the common average value, which is absolutely sufficient for a provider comparison. Every manufacturer has slightly different widths here. Partly, even within one manufacturer, you can choose between different wall constructions.

The wall construction recipes differ only marginally between manufacturers Meier and Müller, the cladding will certainly have been mentioned by the builders, and with that you are usually at about 44 to 46 cm across the provider field. All manufacturers offer centimeter-precise made to measure, but still design in a normal module dimension of predominantly 625, less commonly 833 mm and only very few with other module widths that are also conceptually justified. Ignorance of practice does not really cause less extra effort with timber than with masonry.

If you want to build in masonry, then you should communicate that accordingly beforehand. But even then switching is possible. I just had a conversation last week where after the building permit the general contractor was changed because the timber builder could not offer an appointment for the selection of fittings due to Corona times.

If you want to build in masonry (or it is originally not planned but nevertheless done), the plans should not have to be corrected even though the wall thicknesses already fit, just to eliminate the botched pockets. In your design as well, these are contained in generous quantities (without there being any reasons at any point for exceptions from a clean module). 62.5 cm as exactly five times 12.5 cm is after all a fully compatible module dimension. Raster steps of 80/40/20/10 or 60/20/10 cm in the plans would also make clear that example dimensions adapted to the nearest production measures are meant here. But if there are specifically 142 or even 141.5 cm, then the implementing production planner reads that as an explicit customer request and puts all levers in motion to realize this fantasy dimension. Sometimes there are actually reasons for this, for example if the builders have fallen for a special old or foreign cladding format and no sawing is wanted in the labor-intensive visual facade. In my opinion, this plays irresponsibly with the trust of the builders in the professional and her know-how. This is what I mean by Pippi Longstocking (I could also have said Lucilectric). Nice but botched. For that, as a layman, I would not go to someone who supposedly “learned” it and thus can “definitely do it better” than myself. The professional title architect is perceived by customers as a seal of quality – vegan guests want to be able to trust that there are no bacon cubes in the salad. Unfortunately, some planners do not live up to that. If you personally are nevertheless not disappointed, I wish that to all involved. But on my recommendation list it results in a limitation.

The 1.50m corresponds to our current dining table, which we extend when guests come.

Nevertheless, a new building with these dimensions should be able to accommodate a dining table of 2x1m, even if one uses a different one. If the current one were generally sufficient, there would be no need to build.

It bothers me much more on the north side than in the south, but unfortunately it cannot be argued away.

What really bothers me, I wouldn't build either.

A window seat is planned in the bay window and no sofa. Not practical?

A window seat is, in most cases, a current trend that is often expensive. Sitting there is mostly uncomfortable. Trends are ephemeral and quickly also appear outdated in a house.

Nevertheless, a new building of this size should be able to accommodate a dining table measuring 2x1m, even if you use a different one. If the current one would generally be sufficient, there would be no need to build.

The area is not small. A little more dining table should actually fit in there?

What really bothers me, I would not build either.

We will not do that in the current form either.

A seat window is in most cases a current trend, which is often expensive as well. Sitting there is mostly uncomfortable. Trends are ephemeral and quickly also seem outdated in a house.

Whether it is a trend or outdated is not a decision criterion for us. In combination with a book wall, I find it visually quite appealing by itself. The idea was also to loosen up the long living room tube a bit.