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

This finally reads here like usable basics for a design development, even though I never tire of repeating that "equally sized rooms for equally beloved children" is a parental mindset that is usually neither expressed nor appreciated by those affected. Reasons for the complaint of feeling treated unfairly compared to siblings can always be found and are not disturbed by facts. Besides, the offspring themselves have completely different criteria for what makes a great children's room.

That’s why "roughly the same size." One child should not live like Harry Potter in the cupboard under the stairs while offspring number 2 gets a bright 20 sqm room.

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

Why redundant? The breakfast spot avoids the daily back-and-forth transfer of foodstuffs from the kitchen to the dining room in the morning. I get up at 7:15 a.m. and leave the house at 7:30 a.m. Time is tight. Of course, it does not necessarily have to be solved as a kitchen island with poultry perches.

No piano without a zigzag wall (see )!

I didn’t find the context that quickly. The piano is standing quite well, isn’t it?

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

At this point, for me the question arises whether the goal is sensibly achievable based on the current design or whether one should write off the invested €7,500 for planning plus time and start over with the current knowledge. The main problems, all of which I find understandable, have of course been clearly identified by you: 1. Asymmetry in the building structure where there really shouldn’t be any 2. Planning with a basement, although actually without one is more sensible 3. Ignoring specific construction grids in design-neutral planning Against this stands for me: 1. A floor plan with which I am overall quite satisfied in terms of room layout and space offer, even if, for example, the basement is removed and the study is converted into a technical/laundry room. 2. An exterior view that I find quite appealing overall if the "Sümmetrieh" is corrected. Since the classic city villa look was avoided, I see the two full floors more as an advantage in terms of flexibility and complexity reduction.

I didn't find the context that quickly. The piano is actually quite well placed, isn't it?

No, nothing against your piano, an insider:

For me, the question at this point is whether the goal is sensibly achievable based on the current design or whether the invested €7,500 for planning + time should be written off and restarted anew with the current knowledge. [...] 1. A floor plan with which I am overall quite satisfied in terms of room layout and space offer, even if, for example, the basement is deleted and the study is converted into a technical/laundry room.

Yes, write off the tuition fees for this service phase 1 and 3 (in my opinion not 1 to 3); do not try to fix the current design but relaunch it, i.e. also do not repurpose rooms from it.

3. Disregard of specific construction grids in construction-method-neutral planning

A whole sack full of small defects, which however do not decisively spoil the design; more significant are the conceptual flaws. I already pointed out on Saturday and Sunday that there was a wrong turn regarding the roof shape and the staircase not extending into the roof space. The sensitivity to the rhythm emerges naturally when sketching, e.g., with millimeter paper: 5 mm as the large step 62.5 cm / 1 mm as the small step 12.5 cm (= scale 1:125, I personally also work in the preliminary design at scale 1:160, if I work to scale at all at that stage). But the main thing is first concept and discussion, not quickly switching to the drawing level. Like on the highway, you’re not supposed to immediately switch to the passing lane. Laypeople have a patience problem when planning, and "customer-friendly" architects adapt to that.

1. Asymmetry in the building, where actually none belongs [...] 2. An exterior view which, if the "symmetry" is corrected, I find overall quite appealing. Since the classic city villa look has been avoided, I see the two full floors rather as an advantage in terms of flexibility and complexity reduction.

Forget symmetry completely for a long time; it comes much later again and results where it fits or is easily produced later. At the beginning, it has no place in either sense, since its enforcement and its avoidance are equally poisonous. Avoiding the pseudo-villa appearance is already achieved safely enough by a non-square floor plan and a clipped gable roof. Don’t worry!

But the main thing is first concept and discussion, not quickly switching to the drawing level.

See also: – the builders are itching with floor plan obsession when planning.

The area is not small. A slightly bigger dining table should actually fit in there?

I hadn’t checked that, I had only stuck to the statement that it has been like this so far. I would just want to make sure that it would be possible. Just looked again and as far as I can see, a longer table should also fit. Probably due to the small bay window or the window seat, which I otherwise tend to criticize. I looked at the plan again and that could become a nice corner, but it would actually have to be consciously planned beforehand and then executed nicely. It is 80 cm deep and could therefore rather be an additional, comfortable seating area in the house with appropriate design and not “just” the usual window seat with a wooden bench and the cold glass front as side/backrest. However, the question of additional costs arises, so I would only do something like that if I really want to use it exactly that way and not just see it as a nice gimmick. With the so far extremely generous room dimensions (e.g., children’s rooms), I find it rather unbalanced if the open living space is tight somewhere, because 55 sqm open living space is sufficient but not luxurious (like, for example, the children’s rooms). Then I would also want to design my beloved sauna really comfortably and not be missing 20 cm. People change and so do their perceptions, who knows who will use the sauna someday and I would also like to be able to lie down there, so 200 cm.

Whether that is trendy or outdated is no decision criterion for us. In combination with a wall of books, I find it already visually quite appealing. Another consideration was to loosen up the long living room corridor a bit.

I think that’s good, sorry if I may have commented imprecisely. Often I see “the usual” a window seat that you just have and misjudge its usability. I had already noted before that there seems to be more thought behind it for a truly conscious use. Then it probably is not a trend-driven decision but something of actual individual use. But I hope you understand my general “concern” behind it, which I wanted to point out.

For me the question arises here whether the goal is sensibly achievable based on the current draft or whether the invested €7,500 for planning + time should be written off and start anew with the current knowledge.

Of course, you can also build it that way and you won’t necessarily be unhappy with it; compared to what is built these days you wouldn’t have to hide. Still, the fundamental question remains whether to have a basement or not and some other disturbing details. Sure, €7,500 may feel like money thrown away, but I wouldn’t see it that way or rather my concern would be that I would already know during construction that it wouldn’t be optimal. My goal is to build an optimal house and when construction starts I want to be happy about every visible detail. In our neighborhood, people later correct and cover up things that could have been prevented with proper planning, and €7,500 disappear quite quickly. For example, we paid €7,000 for the broker of the plot and only saw afterward that it would have been possible directly. Bang, gone… well then. I would definitely not “bend” the old floor plan but start from scratch with your new knowledge without external constraints. Make yourself a really great floor plan within the limits of building regulations and then the matching exterior, roof shape, and window design will be found. Take your time on the way to the goal, it will save you a lot of money. Guess how quickly €8,000 get blown. Sliding doors, “usual window seats,” and similar often pointless gimmicks. That would be my tip.

Let them make a second draft. Architects can and know several ways to satisfy a client. Many roads lead to Rome, and if one way is not pleasing, one might take the next.

Of course, you can also build like that and you will not necessarily be unhappy with it; compared to what is built nowadays, you wouldn’t have to hide with it. Nevertheless, the fundamental question remains whether to have a basement or not and some other annoying details. Sure, €7500 might feel like money thrown away, but I wouldn’t see it that way or my approach would be that I would already know during construction that it wouldn’t be optimal. My goal is to build an optimal house and when the construction starts, I want to be happy about every visible detail. In our neighborhood, people often correct and cover up things later that could have been prevented with appropriate planning, and €7500 go quickly down the drain.

Seven and a half thousand euros of divine punishment for knowing my house construction plan and still not having followed it is on one hand a lot of dough and would have been more useful as a donation to the operating association of the blog site where the plan is posted. On the other hand, it is again only peanuts compared to a basement not required by the plot.

I would definitely not "bend" the old floor plan, but start from scratch with your new knowledge, without any external specifications.

Really thrown away money would now be the one spent on flower garlands that are thrown after the "old" house design. Leaving remnants of previous house designs in the mixing bowl of the new concept would have an effect like yogurt cultures. Nostalgia with moldy seeds would be the foundation for a bad harvest. What seems most important to me now is to observe another dough rest in the further planning process, i.e. to impose a strict fasting period during which you refrain from "meat" aka little floor plan pictures and nourish yourself exclusively by conceptual work in the planning process.

Just let them make a second draft. Architects can and do know several ways to satisfy a customer. Many roads lead to Rome, and if one road is not pleasing, maybe you take the next.

Not that! — even a fourth attempt of a draft cannot replace a preliminary design. Trying to satisfy customers is exactly the wrong way and the root of the problem. Customers are impatient, already stamping their feet and whining until they get the pacifier. They are satisfied when the driveway immediately shifts onto the fast lane without detours, the architect is supposed to throw a lump of clay onto the potter’s wheel right away and finally spit out the long-awaited tangible drawings. But that is exactly the recipe for a guaranteed flop. Just start drawing, dogcatmousecar (Monday painter, Sigi Harreis, or also Oskar the quick sketcher, older folks know what I mean) — a party fun from the time before karaoke, but unfortunately the result is just disguised as a building plan yet actually is lead pouring. Skal, Miss Sophie! No, grandpa is not talking about “quilo”, even in the age of digital drawing the gentle roasting preserves the aroma of planning. Without the irreplaceable maturation stages "preliminary design"—which notably does not mean an as-still-not-perfectly-found design—and "dough rest," no matter how many roads lead to Rome, they rather lead to Lodz or one of the many Neustadts. What really benefits builders is a structured conceptual approach: collecting needs and wishes > creating a room program > qualifying the room program > testing upper floor variants with staircase positioning > deriving ground floor > creating a preliminary design; then dough rest with setting switches and budget calibration, only then creating the design. Creating the design immediately and if it (still) does not (completely) please, infinite monkey next please—that would not be designing, that would be design-gambling; first prize: a basement and a hipped roof (with or without seating window, that is only a side note). House design as a game for adults, but unfortunately not with play money.