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

What surprises me: the requirement is single-story. You persistently stick to your personal specifications, enclosed entrance and recessed corner in the living area. How is the upper floor supposed to come about? Are these corners supposed to be carried over upstairs? Have you already thought beyond the ground floor? P.S. The staircase is too narrow (the railing also needs depth) and too short if it’s supposed to be a landing staircase. Chimney flue?

Thank you for your feedback. Yes, I have thought beyond the ground floor. And as a result, I had to discard various stair variants. What exactly does "enclosed entrance" mean? The corners are not to be carried over in the upper floor. But you made me think of something else. The recessed entrance and the recessed corner in the living room together occupy 7 sqm on the ground floor – which in turn costs 5.25 sqm on the upper floor (75%) to maintain single-story design. Am I seeing this correctly? Having or not having those 5 sqm would probably make a big difference given the overall small floor area. Staircase: I thought 1m walking width is quite a lot already, probably a shorter landing would also do, but I will plan a bit more space. Chimney flue – yes, that is missing. :)

The quote is from your first thread (page 7, I don’t have the date handy) about your floor plan. Has it never occurred 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 (disregarding interior walls) now become better so that the discussion is worthwhile?

There are tens of thousands of good designs with houses 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. infill plots in urban areas that are narrow. Maybe the creatives here have the desire and time to pick up pen and paper again or start a new project, but I know from myself that I would initially leave out those corners and niches because they probably interfere with sensible design (and I consider these wishes unimportant anyway, since a terrace can also be roofed differently). The usable area upstairs also has to be solved individually. And if the garden has to be reduced by another 2 meters, I wouldn’t care either, because even a small garden has its use. There is no square optimum.

Of course, in the end this will be left to a professional, but I would like to think about it myself beforehand and figure out what makes sense and what does not. I have a few new ideas for the upper floor that I have not yet put on paper. Unfortunately, the tens of thousands of good designs have so far well concealed themselves from me. However, I would appreciate sketches as food for thought, preferably from you and also without the corners. :) One option for the upper floor would be custom-made cabinets under the slopes instead of a standard cabinet on a 2-meter wall. I have a good carpenter who has already installed good built-in cabinets for me in my apartments.

Square optimum in terms of energy efficiency, I thought, means area to surface ratio or something like that, and overall I have the impression that the vast majority of floor plans tend toward the square – but not so important.

Best regards

Good day,

Of course, in the end it will be left to a professional, but I would like to think about it myself beforehand and find out what makes sense and what doesn't.

On the one hand understandable, on the other hand I repeatedly find that the "own designs" of laypersons mostly end up in the "P" folder once they have spoken to a trained planner.

Write down for yourself what is important to you, what must definitely be included in the design, and what is a "nice to have". That would already be more than most potential clients bring to the initial consultation. Mostly, people sit in front of me who know what they don't want – sure, it is easier to say "no," but up to that moment they haven't dealt with their own needs/wishes regarding a house/plot ;)

Rhine greetings

But you have only planned a 2m gap for the staircase, together with the stairwell and railing you will not achieve a 100 cm walking width.

And if the staircase should have a landing, then 225 cm stair depth (if I counted the boxes correctly) is also not enough.

Once again my example staircase configurations (you always have to consider the floor height, not the room height).

Mostly people sitting in front of me know what they do not want – of course, it is also easier to say "No", but they have not dealt with their own needs/wishes for a house/plot until that moment ;)

That is exactly what we do not want for ourselves personally, and I imagine it is frustrating from your perspective as well. We want to learn and understand a little bit and not just bluntly say what we find stupid. :)


The staircase is drawn with a depth of 250 cm, I had found a landing staircase with this depth somewhere on the net – alternatively, a U-shape like the one you posted would remain.

Regards

With 200x250 you just can't make a good staircase.

And the fact that 250 cm depth is not enough for a walking width should actually be obvious. That leaves 150 cm for the two stair flights with steps each. 14 (very steep) to 15 risers are always necessary. Landing = 1 riser, so 13 to 14 remain, approximately 7 steps per stair flight. This results in less than 25 cm tread depth.

So I find your draft really refreshing. Somehow I immediately feel comfortable. And that, even though I don’t like 45° walls.

If the staircase doesn’t have to be a landing staircase, 2.20 x 2.20m are sufficient as far as I know. But the issue with the single-storey design will of course still be a tough nut to crack. How is it with the headroom above the staircase exit?

The walls look very thin in the house. I think they need to be thicker and with that all the measurements are already messed up, right?