Single-family house with a small footprint, attic and basement, neighbor's approval

Hello everyone,

a while ago I already posted hand-drawn drafts here for discussion. The biggest change since then: I moved the entrance from the front to the side. I would like to discuss this design with someone professional next week, but until then I want to fix possible weak points with your help. A special feature is certainly the strong deviation from the "square optimum," so many of the other interesting topics have only helped me to a limited extent. Therefore my question: where does it really get stuck, what could I solve more elegantly, and of course I am also interested in what you find successful. Forgive me the pen and paper, but that’s how I tinker best. Based on this, I will draw the basement, upper floor, and attic over the weekend, unless the feedback is too devastating.

We could still build 3m deeper, but at the expense of the already small garden, so we do not want that. The covering of the area in front of the garage probably requires the neighbor’s approval, right?

To the north is the access road (cul-de-sac, ends with our property); to the south behind the garden runs a track for regional and freight trains (6 trains per hour during the day). The western neighbor built a long time ago; to the east is a triangular plot; currently still forest, we expect garages as boundary development here, but a house probably won’t fit there due to setback distances.

Edit: very important: I know that the windows are only partially drawn. I am still undecided on how to arrange them on the east and south sides.

Development Plan/Restrictions
Plot size 372 sqm (front approx. 13.50m, rear boundary chamfered)
Slope no
Floor area ratio 0.4
Plot ratio not defined
Building envelope, building line and boundary 7.50m width x 15.00m depth, 5.00m distance to the street at the front
Boundary development House with 3.00m side distance each, garage built on the boundary
Number of parking spaces 3
Number of floors I
Roof shape Gable roof or half-hipped roof with 43° to 47°
Style not defined
Orientation not defined
Maximum heights/limits not defined
Further requirements not defined

Owner Requirements
Style, roof shape, building type classic, gable roof, solid construction, plastered
Basement, floors yes (basement, ground floor, upper floor, attic)
Number of people, age 2 adults early 30s; 2 children planned
Space requirements on ground and upper floors currently hard to answer, on the ground floor I get 56 sqm without stair area, that sounds very little but looks sufficient
Office: family use or home office? no office
Guests per year 10
Open or closed architecture open
Conservative or modern construction conservative
Open kitchen, cooking island yes, half island
Number of dining seats 6-8
Fireplace yes
Music/stereo wall no
Balcony, roof terrace no
Garage, carport yes, yes
Kitchen garden, greenhouse possibly, no
Further wishes/special features/daily routine no

House Design
Planning by Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? openness from kitchen through dining to living; central staircase connects all floors with little hallway/traffic area
What do you not like? the limitation to 7.50m house width causes more problems than first thought; doubts whether the central staircase location in the living room is problematic
Price estimate according to architect/planner not yet defined
Personal price limit for the house, including equipment not yet defined
Preferred heating technology air-water heat pump

If you have to give up details/expansions -
what can you give up? covering/carport, possibly fireplace
- what can you not give up? basement, garage

Best regards

Find the floor plan quite acceptable. But I would miss windows, especially at the top of the plan where the wardrobe is drawn next to the dining table. One is definitely missing there. And the couch is also completely in the dark?

I find the floor plan quite acceptable. But I would miss windows. Especially at the top of the plan, where the cupboard is drawn at the dining table. There is definitely one missing there. And the couch is also standing completely in the dark?

The OP is aware of that. He wanted to hear our opinion first

What surprises me: The requirement is single-story. You persistently stick to your personal specifications, a recessed entrance and a recessed corner in the living area. How is the upper floor supposed to come about? Should these corners be carried over upstairs? Should bay windows be created on the ground floor, or should the entire floor area be used on the upper floor? I can imagine that with straight lines you can more likely achieve the single-story requirement satisfactorily. If you don't get any fundamental criticism now, you will draw the upper floor. You will probably have trouble placing a closet in your plan. Have you thought beyond the ground floor yet?

P.S. The staircase is too narrow (the railing also needs depth) and also too short if it is supposed to be a landing staircase. Fireplace flue?

That is clear to OP. He just wanted to hear our opinion first

:-D those who can read clearly have an advantage :-D

I already have half a pad full of drawings for the other floors, but I was so unconvinced by the results myself that I didn’t find it meaningful to discuss them here.

The quote is from your first thread (page 7, I don’t have the date at hand) about your floor plan. Didn’t it ever occur to you to leave your next 50 years to a professional, i.e. an architect? How should the upper floor, with the same dimensions as the first attempt (ignoring interior walls), now be better so that discussing it is worthwhile?

There are tens of thousands of good designs with houses that are narrower than 7.50. There are great single-family homes that have the layout of a townhouse or semi-detached house. There are great designs of houseboats and other individual houses, e.g. building gaps in urban areas, that are narrow. Maybe the creatives here feel like picking up a pen again or starting a new project, but I know from myself that I would generally omit these corners and niches at first because they probably interfere with sensible designing (and I don’t consider these wishes important anyway, since you can also roof a terrace differently). The usable area on the upper floor must also be solved individually. And if the garden then has to be reduced by another 2 meters, I wouldn’t care either, because even a small garden has its use.

A special feature is certainly the strong deviation from the "square optimum",

There is no square optimum.