rough site planning 819m²

I had already given you instructions on how to break through your Gordian knots in the old thread: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissplanung-Bungalow-170qm.31445/page-6#post-330945 and I seem to remember you wanted to switch to another property without a developer afterwards (?)

I already gave you instructions on how to cut through your Gordian knots in the old thread: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrissplanung-Bungalow-170qm.31445/page-6#post-330945 and I seem to remember you wanted to switch to another plot without a developer afterwards (?)

I actually just want to know how you/you all find the proposal now and whether I could still improve something. Maybe I have also overlooked something? For example, the roof overhang on the house (probably a 40cm hip roof) causes problems if I place the garage or the carport next to the house.

Your suggestion was, as far as I remember, to set the house crosswise and put the garage in front. But in that case, we have very little plot area at the back or am I seeing that wrong?

The other suggestion was an L-shaped bungalow. But in that case, we have little storage space under the roof and, to be honest, I find an L-shaped bungalow less nice, but that is a matter of taste.

Regarding the plot without a developer. Yes, we were at the investor yesterday and talked to him.

Again, as a reminder, what my criticism points about the current plot were: - noise - developer and plot do not come from the same source (land transfer tax) - rear area of the plot faces south

I was able to refute the matter of noise myself by listening to the noise. Not so bad after all! The tendency is currently towards the "old" plot.

Since no one has responded here anymore, I assume it is okay like this.

Actually not. That means: I am very patient and always try to question the "why" and help. And I also ask questions so that the original poster has to consider whether everything they are telling us actually makes sense. But here I am unfortunately out. You set things as mandatory (for you), but they basically don’t have to be. If I start here in the thread, then the entrance MUST be lateral, the house MUST be on the building boundary, the house is fixed to dimensions given by a floor plan that actually doesn’t fit. Or rather, it is a random product found while searching which, through a gap (mind you, the highlight of this house), could have a fifth room. Any planning from you is based on a floor plan that will not even be built. So: why should anyone tie themselves to the 13 x 16 meter corset and brood over it, when there are dozens of other possibilities like an L-shape, more elongated, etc.

Is the distance between garage and house of only about 1.9 meters enough?

You were asked what the distance is supposed to be used for.

What do you think if the entire northeast side of the house is cluttered with “objects”?

What alternatives would you have? You can also leave them out… Have a look around the neighborhood to see how they solved distributing “objects” on the plot.

I actually want to initially focus on the site planning; we will do the floor plan planning for the house in a later post.

Aha, but please not with floor plans that specify stupid dimensions. And planning a roof overhang already now is also wrong at this stage.

But I just can’t come up with such good ideas. I like it much better like this.

What do you like better? Taking floor plans that are not suitable for your room program as a fixed thing instead of roughly dealing with the plot first? For me personally, with your room program, I see a house with an attic or a full floor, not a bungalow. You will hardly find a standard bungalow of this size or with 5 rooms online, because they waste way too much space on today’s manageable plots and cover them. THE bungalows of THAT size are in a common price range and above, preferably architect-designed houses. From a certain size on, bungalows no longer fit the current eco-concept. You want a house of a huge size with a space for playing and fun for a price that even the thriftiest here do not realistically achieve. All our neighbors have about +-650 sqm and built bungalows. The bungalows all have about 100-120 sqm living space. With a double carport and the general 3-meter boundary strips, there remains a cozy piece of terrace and lawn. And you can see here too: not much remains. I also think that the price issue is exactly where one can say that there is nothing for us to plan individually. Much effort is in vain here. And a hint: with your price, no expandable or usable space upstairs will be created, since it is very likely that the cheap xy-construction will be chosen, where the framework is placed haphazardly. I posted a sketch two weeks ago. It would have been nice if besides “what do the two K’s mean” there had also been some feedback. Ok, I just read that an L-shape is not yours. Anyway: the plot dominates and determines the house!

Actually not. That means:
I am very patient and always try to question the "why" and help. And I also ask questions so that the original poster has to consider for themselves whether everything they are telling us actually makes sense. But here, I’m out.
You set things as definite that must be (for you), but they fundamentally do not have to be. If I start here in the thread, then the entrance MUST be on the side, the house MUST be on the building boundary, the house is fixed to dimensions given by a floor plan that actually doesn’t fit. Or rather, it’s a random product found while searching that, through a gap (mind you, the highlight of this house) could offer a fifth room.
All your planning is based on a floor plan that will not be built anyway. So: why bother with a corset of 13 x 16 meters and fret about it if there are dozens of other possibilities like an L-shape, a more elongated shape, etc.?

The things I set are not carved in stone. Of course, the house entrance doesn’t have to be on the side for me, but what am I supposed to do if the plot is such that it would be better to place the entrance on the side.

Also, if I set things, it might sometimes be out of ignorance. The overhang of the roof comes from the offer by the house provider.

It’s not like I haven’t considered switching to a city villa. But we currently have an apartment with 142m² and I find it wonderful to have everything on one level.

What alternatives would you have?
You could also leave them out... Just look around the neighborhood and see how they solved distributing “objects” on the plot.

Aha, but please not with floor plans that dictate stupid dimensions.
And planning a roof overhang already at this stage is also wrong.

What do you prefer? Taking floor plans that are not suitable for your room program as fixed, instead of roughly familiarizing yourself with the plot first?

Regarding the distance between house and garage/carport, I said that I will omit it. What do I like better? Dealing with the plot. But I actually thought I’m already doing that. What I can certainly still do is to look around the neighborhood to see how the neighbors have built.

For myself, with your room program, I see a house with a roof- or full upper floor, not a bungalow. You will hardly find a standard bungalow of that size or with 5 rooms online because they waste way too much area on the nowadays manageable plots and cover them. THE bungalows of THAT size are in a common price range and higher, often also architect-designed houses. Above a certain size, bungalows no longer fit into today’s eco-concept.
You want a house of a huge size with an expansion for play and fun at a price that not even the thriftiest among us have really achieved here.

All our neighbors have roughly ±650sqm plots, where they built bungalows. The bungalows all have about 100-120sqm living space. With double carports and the usual border strips of 3 meters, only a cute bit of terrace and lawn area remains.
And you can see here too: not much is left.

I also think that the price story is exactly where one must say that there is nothing for us to plan individually here. Much effort is in vain.
And just to point out: at your price, there will also be no expandable or usable space upstairs, since it is very likely that the cheap xy construction will be chosen, where the framework is placed crosswise.

I had posted a sketch two weeks ago. It would have been nice if, besides “what do the two K’s mean,” there had been some feedback. Ok, I’m reading now that the L-shape is not yours.

Anyway: the plot dominates and determines the house!

I can understand that you see a second full floor or attic. There are simply many more floor plans and houses available on the internet that would be custom-tailored to me. But honestly, I don’t understand why you don’t find the idea okay if we take the Scanhaus Marlow and put my office where the terrace is. Extend kitchen + living room + dining area, change a bit, and that’s it. (For example, utility room and guest WC).

There are indeed nice L-shaped bungalows, but if I liked them, they were long and/or wide and therefore (apparently for me) not suitable for the plot.

So price should not be the problem. On the one hand, we have a lot of equity and my income is good for this area here. So the effort is not in vain! I can currently only say that in the first offer, we had 1290€ per m², meaning when dividing the house price by the m². I planned more generously, i.e., 1500€ per m² plus PV and ventilation system extra. That’s another 30k euros extra.

By the way... I know the roof construction currently doesn’t meet what we need. I will tackle that when I am 100% sure it’s going to be a bungalow.

I honestly don’t understand why you don’t think the idea is okay if we take the Scanhaus Marlow Marlow and put my office where the terrace is.

I already wrote that: the exclusivity of your office. It gets the best side of the whole house (aside from the fact that the location is not suitable for home office). And I think in a family household the space should be chosen somewhat downhill, while living areas should get the prime location. But that is my personal opinion.

Extend kitchen+living room+dining area a bit, change a little and it’s good. (e.g. utility room and guest WC/

A little change results in a different floor plan

they were long and/or wide and therefore (seemingly) not suitable for the property for me.

The house is too wide in the front!

By the way... I know that the current roof construction does not meet what we need. I will tackle that once I’m 100% sure it’s going to be a bungalow.

That referred to the price. Have you already asked SH how expensive the house is? I estimate with the foundation slab over 300,000. With other dimensions, you’re dealing with a different house. I don’t even know if they offer more than just moving a wall ops:

Oh... I withdraw my question. You are tied to the developer, right?