we need to be able to see the whole site plan showing the proposed buildings on the block as well as close up showing readable dimensions and why not plan the second dwelling and subdivision at the same time so that the two homes can be designed to fit together and complement each other even if you later decide to sell the front block with the plans and who will live in the granny flat and the house?

thinking about the granny flat ...with only approximate dimensions my suggestions reduce the hallways, moves the laundry inside and makes the space more comfortable for a real granny and reducing all the stairs would also be an improvement and, depending on local climate, eastern windows can make the inside very hot in summer, so smaller windows and a verandah with external blinds would help modify the impact of the eastern orientation and make the alfresco more useable year round and provide a little more wall space inside for a better lounge arrangement

Hi Dr Retro

Thank you for your comments. Yes to all the above. This is a project that we have been planning for a couple of years. We will install all the underground services to the front and back block at the same time; we have ensured there is enough land to build a reasonably sized house on the front block in the future. We have decided not to subdivide now as we won't be building on the front block in the foreseeable future and we don't want to have to pay rates on that empty block for a number of years. Thank you for your ideas though they are greatly appreciated.

kind regards

Catherine

Hi Catherine,

A few issues here

Firstly there is a lot to consider in regards to future subdivision scenario . Really there should be some preliminary design performed on the front block as well to map out the potential and viability of the critical aspects............as a ballpark you'll be probably talking $100-$150K flagfall subdivision costs involved in infrastructure, services separation. surveying, driveways, fencing. You also need to comply with driveway/turning circle clearances once you get a certain distance away from the street.......

Secondly, off the cuff comments/critique on the proposed design are (a) it's like it's an apartment type building on a large allotment that in turn (b) main living spaces don't connect at all with the natural ground level. There are ways to negotiate slope and narrow sites via design that enable more pleasant external/outdoor (natural/garden) spatial connection with the internal spaces and a particularly when you have reasonable site length it would make more sense to "break up" the building and exploit the length more to create little pockets of light and garden for a more appealing and interesting living experience. Also there is a lot of expensive retention and 2 storey external areas overlapping with lower floor internals action going on...but it's not that "impressive" for what it's going to cost, in comparison to say a more creative and sensitive design response that better connects to the site and puts the money into a living experience that minimises unnecessary full flights of stairs, and embraces the natural topography and impressive length of the block.......

I won't even go into the numerous inadequacies of the actual building design as it's almost not worth it, but just as an example, the main living kitchen dining is not great - you can't just stick a 2 seater couch 1m from the wall and think that's going to work

Ultimately would need more detailing information about the context, climate, location, as well as your specific needs/goals for the project, to provide appropriate further comments

Cheers PD :)

Hi Louise

Thank you for your comments and ideas. The build is flexible as far as who will live there. We may move in ourselves. I love your remake of the floorpan for the granny flat. I will take some better pics of the layout later this afternoon and post them. I do very much appreciate your comments. Thank you.

kind regards

Catherine

Hi PD

Thank you for your comments. I fear I have not provided enough context for everyone to make informed comments. The boundary to the rear of the block is a creek and over the other side of the creek is a nature reserve, there are numerous large trees and the height of the building will give beautiful views to the north and the east, and a feeling of being off the ground at mid tree level.

We like the idea of having the garage under and using the natural slope to provide that. As far as the placement of furniture, the designer put those in, they may not represent reality.

I'm well aware of the costs involved, and the local planning instruments and the need for vehicle turning and other council requirements. I'm really interested in comments on the floor plan, particularly if we can improve it. One area that concerns me is at the top of the stairs. I'm not sure this will be that usable.

Thanks for your comments, they are very much worth it to me.

kind regards

Catherine

configurations/solutions that drive for upper level living to capitalise on views with utility/parking under/lower - nothing wrong with that in concept.....however there is always opportunity to retain connection with the natural level. The main issue I see is that it's like it's trying to squeeze down living space to "fit" over the top of lower building, when it's actually a double whammy because (a) upper living is reduced and (b) external terrace over lower building is the most expensive way to configure upper level outdoor spaces. It would be probably similar cost to expand upper internal living and develop an outdoor deck that is open to below......

Just to demonstrate attached plans for a little house we designed a while back that implements a split level strategy to negotiate site fall, that capitalises on distant ocean views up the page, but retains some connection to peripheral garden spaces. It also gets rid of the narrow tight staircases (like in yours) and maintains open easy flow within the residence with certain aspects of generosity......

Your plan is a classic case of designing "rooms" and then fitting function in after, rather than designing from the inside out, which configures the function & experience of the space first, and then articulates/"wraps" the building form around it all appropriately..... completely different ways of designing, and completely different levels of built outcome & living experience...

Depends upon what you want. Also without any understanding of your age, this type of residence as a retirement downsizer, is arguably not ideal due to the no lift & no bedroom on ground level factor, so in that regard it's limiting from an investment point of view......

As always projects involve working through requirements and priorities, and the design should respond appropriately and intimately to these first and foremost.......

It's like you need to take a step back and thrash out some alternative broad form concepts for the overall project to make sure you're not missing opportunities building new on what sounds like a beautiful site......

Hope this provides some food for thought

glad you like my suggestions for the granny flat (NB based on my estimate of room sizes relative to total floor area?) and would be glad to review floor plans for the flat and the house if i could see dimensions of all the rooms

Apologies for not getting to this earlier. I noticed the bed room sizes are on the beds.

The 3 bedroom living/kitchen space is 6.7 x 7.4 in total not excluding the stairs.

Here is the site plan too.

still can't see all the dimensions but wouldn't the eastern view from the granny be mostly of the roof and rear of the three bed dwelling and wondering if the granny flat deck would be better on the north and swop the double garage and bedroom floors allowing entry in the middle at living area level and bedrooms and laundry at lowest level with direct views of the creek and bush and potentially less of the block devoted to the long driveway??

based on total original floor area of 327.5 sqm (115.1+ 212.4) my suggested variation is slightly bigger (335.2sqm) and has the double garage between the two dwellings, central entry with close access to kitchen and living areas from garage and entry, the master bedroom is upstairs with generous wiw and ens. less hallways makes bigger rooms and the upstairs floor overhanging the downstairs allows for more garden, less driveway and more comfortable movement between the different levels and the bonus rumpus (with bar sink?) ground floor verandahs. laundry and powder room..

if you like the basic idea i can add the missing details

.......it a significantly compromised and unbalanced "dense" development confined to one end, that as mentioned involves a huge amount of arguably wasted driveway area. oklouise has the right idea with reducing the driveway but really what should happen before any focus is given to internal layouts etc, is firstly robustly & efficiently resolve the parking/driveway/access/egress solution to the WHOLE development to maximise the development opportunity/potential for the buildings. This is what we start with when dealing with subdivisions, it,'s just setbacks, plot ratios and parking/driveway provisions and overall building envelop potential depending upon the overall brief. The problem here is that there's 250m2 at least of driveway surfaces that can't be used for any other function......I'd be looking at a way of capitalising upon/reclaiming/better using all of the rear/back run of driveway and full width of the block as construction potential, that incorporates potentially a 3 car basement type parking setup accessed from the top end, and staggers the granny flat to main house relationship across the site so which would bring about so much more design potential and making the most of the block, which currently is a very skinny block being made ever skinnier! It's also priorities and views from the granny flat may have to be strategically limited and accepted as such.......the issues with the internals are the least if the issues...it's the larger scale issues that I consider more problematic

Hi Louise

Yes I do like your layouts. A definite improvement on our current plans. Thank you for your ideas. I would love to see the missing details.

extra details included as requested ... i was attempting to keep the total floor area as close to the original as possible to help show some alternative options within a similar footprint but ideal size and location of the building will depend on a site plan with precise contour levels and location of windows should be decided on site but relieved that you like the basic concept of the double garage in the middle which will make a much more comfortable home that will be more connected to the backyard and views...best of luck with your build

Hi PD

I wrote a response yesterday but our internet went down right when I was posting it. I wanted to say thanks for the time you have spent thinking about our project, and for your ideas. They have sparked a review and interesting discussions for us. I was wondering though do you think a 3 car basement garage would be cost neutral if we reduced the driveway length.

Thank you Louise. I appreciate your efforts. We are reviewing the plans and will be incorporating some of your layout ideas. I wish I had asked this question a year ago!

Good to hear this has triggered review........re the basement costs, it depends upon how it's done. Either way you are doing 2 other separate garages that would be rolled into one. it involves negotiating levels, grading driveway at the higher end to get down so there could be some increased complexity.....but it's hard to make an accurate comment on numbers......

Catherine when you are doing something of this scale it's critical you are working with people/designers who are ALL OVER the costs in relation to design decisions and options. If they can't provide you with this advice and it's just design/plans/drawings that then get handed back to you to discuss potential costs with a builder, then I'd argue they're not up to the task. Before we do anything we robustly thrash out just numbers and project scope relationships (ie no detailed drawing!) and it deals effectively with the major issues and project alignments at the right time, and mitigates the nasty surprises or wasting resource pursuing options that are not viable.

Either way, as I previously commented, as it's drawn currently it's a relatively expensive design that is arguably not delivering you the value/potential that you'd expect for an expensive design if you get what I'm saying. You will be paying a certain amount for a split, staggered or two level building (which is essentially two residences in one) and when you're getting into this type of construction ( basement or garages + driveway with a building of certain complexity & size) it will pretty much cost a similar ballpark whichever way you configure it.........BUT the outcome with be DRAMATICALLY different one way or the other, comparing designs of different levels of quality. Good design is not necessarily more expensive, rather it is better considered and gives you more for your money.