Single-family house floor plan - modern architecture, 260 m² living area

  • Erstellt am 2025-10-29 11:47:10

Gerddieter

2025-10-29 21:11:53
  • #1
What struck me first: such a large living area and not even a guest room for friends, exchange students, etc..?
 

Akrug1986

2025-10-29 21:21:54
  • #2
Thank you very much for your feedback - we live right next to our parents and have additional space there for friends, etc. That is why we do not need another room :)
 

Papierturm

2025-10-29 21:25:04
  • #3
    I would look to see, given the use of space, if a guest room could also be created somewhere.

Otherwise:
- I don’t really like the combination of bedroom, dressing room, and master bathroom. I would solve that differently. Ideally so that you have peace in the bedroom when your partner is already up.
- Entrance area: guest toilet currently directly in the dirty area (but this is supposed to be changed, I think I read?). Stairs also close to the dirty area, but still in the “yellow” area.
- the shed will offer little storage space because of the two doors.
- are two cooking areas necessary? Or did I see that wrong?


The removal of the gallery will already help a lot. Currently, the entire house is a single acoustic body, and you are only one door away from most typical sources of noise. In this respect, the type of construction is almost secondary. (Solid construction is not necessarily a guarantee for soundproofing. Some bricks absorb sound well. Others are very noisy.)

Hybrid work = partly home office? Then, in my opinion, an office somewhere is very sensible and I would keep a wide distance from the gallery. (Because it transmits noises very strongly throughout the house.)
 

tomtom79

2025-10-29 21:39:20
  • #4
Children's rooms next to parents' rooms I find a no-go.
 

ypg

2025-10-30 01:01:45
  • #5


You’re not serious? You yourself are planning a house worth over 1.5 million, but want to accommodate friends at your parents’ place. For bicycles and carriages, you’re also planning outside the property.

Most people don’t appreciate my criticism – because it hits many points precisely.
In advance: I like design houses, whether old or new builds, I have several glossy books. But one thing is architecture, prestige, if well planned, the other is to create a house for feeling good and living, where you not only plan runways to lead friends or strangers through to then collect astonishment about “that’s really different,” but where everyone can develop themselves.
Of course, some define aesthetics differently than others, but there are of course stylistic tools often used, for example to connect the house with the garden (+), to create openness through air spaces (+), or to omit disturbing fittings and frames purely for aesthetics (+).
However, not everything is compatible with a single-family house. So in such a design, I would see a resident who wants to show off money and for whom coziness means nothing but bourgeois stiffness.

Over the years there have always been some well-planned, relatively oversized houses here in the forum where it succeeded to combine both. They were all planned by good architects. Complaints about this or that could basically be left out, because the house designs (not only floor plans) worked for the purpose, namely to create something special, spacious and to bring the family together. Every corner was thought out and logical, one could also understand from the planning how it should be realized in construction, every door had its wall giving it support, etc. I do not see this here.
In my opinion, it has not succeeded here or is technically not buildable as drawn. Also many conceptual errors, but you are here to be told the missing processes.
But now I don’t know what you expect from the self-planning either. Do you now want to get ahead of an architect who plans such prestige houses and shine? Do you want to preempt the architect and immediately stifle trained and studied energies?
I’d say: you do exactly the opposite, namely make yourself small, because compared to the professional you actually only present a flawed castle in the air.
I work in a different industry, but also in service. If someone hires me, they get the total package of know-how. If the client says to me, “I want a view from this side and this and that,” then he only gets that, even though I know it would be more meaningful and better from another side.

The basement is the foundation of the ground floor. You plan the basement first and then the ground floor. Anything else is structural nonsense.

You put those in immediately, they replace necessary walls. They hold beams or ceilings. They also hold the upper floor.

I’m not talking about “sitting.” When living and dwelling, you also sit, mainly in the evenings, but mostly you move around the house.
You come home, start your daily work: washing clothes, watering flowers, cleaning, preparing food, short rest, etc.
Your separations separate. They separate so that you have to go around them. This horizontally planned “crossing” of “furniture” you have to constantly go around. What is separating about it if it is only hip-high or similar? Hip-high doesn’t separate, but you have to go around it. It annoys you several times every day.
Then the thing with the kitchen/pantry: having to always go around 3 meters to get to the freezer or whatever, you don’t want that or have time for it in everyday life. Simply impractical.

I asked about your room program: do you need an office or not?
If you need an office: why is it planned nowhere, but now has to come instead of the air space?
I conclude there is no room program but that you planned arbitrarily.

Solid construction echoes. Oversized rooms echo. High ceilings echo. Unfurnished rooms echo. Air spaces echo. All together is a disaster. And acoustic panels… honestly? They will be removed again in 10 years at the latest because they look worn out.

No one can retreat here because everyone can spy on the room of another. That’s not nice even within the family.

… in front of the window, that’s a joke? Who wants bushes on cables in front of the window?

That might actually be a stylish element that one could use. But there is absolutely no concept of the exterior appearance.

Whether 16 or 12.5 meters in the garden, you won’t notice it. What do you want to do there anyway? A pool is drawn in. But the floor plan gives no impression of pool use.
But you will notice the missing garage space. I keep saying that, please read other discussions independently for that.

You don’t see it, and there is no wall either, why don’t you see a door if it is there? Does it float at Halloween and is otherwise invisible? And only visible when you need it?

There will be no window at all because middle rooms cannot have windows.

That’s for your questions.

About the design, what I notice.
Upper floor: a balcony facing west in front brings nothing at all.
A balcony negatively affects privacy.
Who builds big, can also have big rooms, although children’s rooms don’t become cozier just because the furnishing options are finite at some point.
Who builds big also expects a nice master bedroom, but whether it makes sense that it gets windows to the south and west, I doubt, even if there are blinds. And whether the size is necessary?
Bathroom: I gladly take a view through on vacation, but please not in everyday life. Sorry, this is only for house exhibitions or people freshly in love in their 20s, otherwise a no-go.
Roofing of the ground floor entrance simply forgotten?
Ground floor: windows, load-bearing and partition walls quite questionable.
Single garage?
Family suitability, functionality?
Living room of 16 sqm… connection to the fireplace zero.
Individual furnishing hardly possible. Wall closets to ceiling height?
Window at the corner of the backup kitchen, wall in the breakfast seating area?

If the concluding sentence is missing, it will come tomorrow.
 

hanse987

2025-10-30 01:55:24
  • #6
I am missing the fireplace on the upper floor. Somehow the smoke has to get out of the house.


According to the stairs, a floor height of 3.65m is planned. If you subtract 25cm for the concrete ceiling and 20cm for the screed build-up, you get a clear room height of about 3.2m. If a suspended ceiling is to be installed, its construction height also reduces the room height. If the height is now supposed to be 3.4m, then the stairs will get at least one more step and will be longer. Therefore, the room height should be fixed as one of the first points.

I am curious about the stair planning to the basement, because it will not have a room height of 3m, will it?
 
Oben