Which side is the front? Are windows not allowed on the sides?

Unless you are trying to avoid fresh air and natural light, put the bathrooms where they can have windows and add a second window to each bedroom and make one of them large enough for emergency escape and rescue. I suspect this design might meet typical minimum natural ventilation standards.

Get rid of that angled corner in the kitchen. If its a counter it is too deep to use and if it is a pantry it is too small and interrupts the work counters. Make the island wider and closer to the counters.

Then hire someone to design a house for you. Good luck.

I like bpathome's idea of an L shaped house... Or any other common "letter shaped" form, like T, C/U, E, H, or I.

Will you consider working with an architect? :-) He (or she) can design a home that takes full advantage of southern exposure, without major issues like 20'-25' entry/foyer hallways. Please consider it! :-)

Unless your background is in visual design, I would seriously consider finding a person of design talent or an architect to help design your home.

You don't mention where you are, but that can make a difference too in how the home is heated and cooled. While you ideally do want the public spaces facing south, that doesn't mean you need to have your private rooms facing north.

Ideally you want light in every public room and bedroom to come from two directions.

While I appreciate those who actually answered my question, I'm baffled by most of these comments. I stated this was a very rough draft, meaning basically a sketch. Windows are missing, closet sizes haven't been settled on, etc.

Things to know:

1. This is more about function rather than aesthetics. Like I do not care that my bedroom in my front hall because NO ONE uses the front door.

2. There are actually lots of windows in my actual drawing but lacking from this CAD. Basically that back wall is all windows and doors.

3. Maybe you missed the statement about us doing work ourselves but the square design saves a ton of money. I'm not into wasted corners and multiple roof lines.

4. I appreciate the suggestion to hire architect. Clearly that was the question I asked.

I'm not sure that a rectangle is more expensive to build than a square; I would imagine the roof is much easier to do on a rectangle. But about the front door: if NO ONE uses it, why not eliminate it, and use the side door as the front door? Use the old hall space to enlarge a bedroom (I don't know if you need to, it's just an option) or as storage.

if you feel you MUST have a front door, and place it and the hall on the left or right side of the front of the house. The hall can then have windows to brighten the space, and you won't need to turn on the hall light till it's dark out. If you do it on the right, it can feed into the side entrance, if you do it on the left, you can still have the MBR open to the hall, but it's a nicer space to walk out to in the morning.

also, consider flipping the bathrooms and closets so that the bathrooms are on the outside wall. This gives them a window, which saves money in not turning on lights every time.

Recently I did a search on most economical house to build and most energy efficient. The square/close to square shape was often cited. Reason being a square home requires less foundation and less roof than a rectangle of same square footage.

It is a rectangle. All sides are not even. I referenced square from a previous comment.

But yes thank you those are great suggestions. I would love to get rid of the front door!

Swapping the bathrooms is a great idea.I'm not sure how my closet door got moved to the bathroom either so that will be moved.

There's a tipping point as to costs but if costs were all that's considered we'd all be living in Quanset huts now wouldn't we.

And "40x50ish" is a LOT of square footage for an open plan 3B/2Ba house.

I get that you are looking to be economical and do work yourself. It's possible that the roofing system for this house will be expensive and complicated even though it is almost a square. 40' trusses will be complicated and hard to handle / erect - and it will lead to a larger / steeper roof perhaps. So the rectangle might be easier to build, open up some other roofing choices (shed?) and reduce overall costs.

Do you have ideas for your elevations?

Designing around standard lumber sizes might be the most cost effective way to build.

I realize you said rough, but that's the issue with showing a CAD drawn plan - it looks more "finished" when you don't mean it to be. Also - it's fast / easy to slap in a few windows, so that's why you are getting that feedback.

I think the answer to your design dilemma is to make this house more rectangular so that you don't have to walk so "deep" into the house (and it will have the benefit of helping light penetrate deeper, as well. I found a plethora of simple 3/2 rectangular ranch plans that resolve this issue.

If you put the door on the side facing the front, you could set it back from the front, still on the squarish foundation and under the same roof. But it would give you a little less space to heat and cool, and would put the entry under a protective overhang.

This isn't your program as these are two story but just shown as an illustration as to how much more SF your building to get very little in return. These are all 3BR/2BA like yours but the smallest unit here (Unit C) is 1144SF and the others, as you can see, aren't much bigger. And with a single story like you're considering there is no SF devoted over to stairs which the stair area is figured into these houses' size calcs.

One of the reasons for the 40x50 layout was we were initially looking into a steel building. So the 40 ft trusses were not an issue with that. Slowly I am leaving towards a more traditional build but still exploring all options.

The only design aspect u am set on is that long room (kitchen, dining, living) facing south.

Thank you architectrunnerguy! I have definitely started leaning to a 2 story to gain more SF under a smaller roof. I will upload my 3d plans later to show a better grasp of concept.

My friend threw that on CAD from a sketch and left out windows. He changed a few things as well as he is in construction lol.

"...Recently I did a search on most economical house to build and most energy efficient. The square/close to square shape was often cited. Reason being a square home requires less foundation and less roof than a rectangle of same square footage..."

Well, if economical form is the primary criterion, a circle is more efficient than a square for the same area. Have you considered a yurt? You can do only one, or you can connect two or more, or you can stack them for a two-level.

The bear adds a nice touch, but I don't know if it comes with the kit! It may be optional...

Coming up with a well designed, efficient, small house is an often under estimated task, even by those in the design profession. A skyscraper is maybe easier where there's a lobby floor and 50 identical floors above it.

Good luck with your build. Exciting times!

Yes it is! Sometimes simple is too complicated to grasp.

Since I'm not finished with lunch yet...here's some threads that might be of interest....

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3281434/book-suggestions?n=10

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3285825/what-makes-a-house-have-good-design?n=39 (And speaking of complexity read #69 on my post here)

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/4106638/designing-a-custom-home

Ok I'm only halfway through your list and we see eye to eye on so much! But #5 is my favorite. A fun project! If I only had enough space and knowledge to completely type out my vision, I think you would get it. I've completely laid out my idea to designers to come up with squat of a drawing. Mainly because I am in an area where no one thinks outside the box of a traditional home. Think industrial farmhouse. Crisp lines with a little southern flare. Metal awnings over porches and grand windows (ha which are not presented well in that layout) to show the sprawling acreage behind us. Bedrooms are not as important to me as that large area is that will house countless hours of fun by our large family and friends.

I've got to get a better design to show what I want!

A somewhat expanded box...

Hugh Newell Jacobsen.

@ Virgil

I'm not the OP, but I'm wondering how 5-6? different roofs would make for an economical build. Explain why you posted this?

llucy wrote, "...I'm not the OP, but I'm wondering how 5-6? different roofs would make for an economical build. Explain why you posted this?..."

Well I did say "A somewhat expanded box" didn't I? Mebbe subconsciously I was thinking that sometimes it's important to "think outside the box"...

The OP wrote, "...large area is that will house countless hours of fun by our large family and friends..."

It made me think of some of Jacobsen's light-filled boxes.

Even though it's not an economical build, looking at all types of architecture and especially all types of houses, can help you to think outside the box and come up with ideas you might not have originally thought of.

The problem is when we have a fixed idea of how our house should be, so we miss something that might make it even better.

You're stuck on the idea of a square, and -- yeah -- that maximizes space, but it isn't the only measurement that matters. As others have pointed out, building a square pushes your roof into a difficult position and prevents you from using standard-sized trusses.

With a square, you'll never get rid of the extra-long, odd entry hall.

I did a quick layout of the same general rooms ... pushed into a rectangle ... a rectangle keeps everything two-rooms deep, which works for circulation with one central axis /hallway:

The house is now roughly 56 x 29" and is about 1630 square feet. This means you can use a standard truss (easier and cheaper), and you can build a simple roofline running the long direction, something like this -- you literally could not build a more simple or a more weather-proof roof:
- Note that the interior walls line up, which will make for an easier build.

- Note, too, that the bathrooms are now on exterior walls so that they receive natural light. And in both bathrooms all the water is housed in ONE wall, making the plumbing easier /cheaper to install.

- You have a laundry room now, and it's convenient to the master bedroom /closet -- but still accessible to the rest of the house too.

- You have just as much counterspace, but it is more compact.

- You have a smaller pantry but larger closets throughout.

- You have a large, walk-in closet opening into the living room ... it could house coats as well as board games, etc. ... or it could be a pocket office to hide a built-in computer desk.

- At 15x15, the dining room seems large ... but since it's centrally located, it also serves as a hallway to other rooms, and you don't want it to be so small that you can't comfortably reach the back door.

- A shared wall between the master bedroom and the living room is a negative, but the entertainment center is placed on the far side of the room, so it's not as bad as it could've been. If you do a long bookcase on that wall in the master, it'll give you some good sound insulation.

We've seen much worse so I'm going to say you have "a little" design talent :-)

I grew up in a 2200 square foot house my dad built himself in the late 1960s. At the time 2200 square feet was considered an estate home where we lived! No internet of course but he was well informed on passive solar design from books and magazines and was mentally able to take designs my mom captured in magazine clippings and implement them in the house over the 3 year design period. The whole process took about 5 years: 3 for design and site prep, 2 for construction. I didn't recognize this until much later in life (sadly after he had passed away) but he did have pretty good design talent. I came to appreciate it when my mom sold the house 45 years later and buyers were in awe (multiple offers in a low volume market) so it withstood the test of time.

There were a few little design errors that we learned to deal with (such as oven doors opening into a narrow passageway between kitchen and the living/bedroom areas) but for the most part he got it right: passive solar design, vaulted ceilings in every room, large windows, lots of storage. Our house was a rectangle to maximize northern/southern exposure. We had no windows on the west side of the house because the area had potential for 50-80 MPH warm westerly winds (desert) several months out of the year so he planted a windbreak which also eventually grew tall enough to shade the house,

My point is: take the time to get it right. You can control cost, quality, and schedule. The perfect combination of low cost, high quality, and fast schedule is unobtainable so for a DIY builder schedule is your friend (hopefully not 10+ years). If you want low cost and fast schedule drop a manufactured house on the lot and be done. If you are going to go to the trouble to build your own home make it something you will be proud of for decades. If you plan to sell it within a few years make it appealing to most people (avoid the entry "tunnel" and rooms with small/few windows).

@Stan Z I completely agree! Currently we do not have trees around where the house will be so I too do not want any Windows on the west side. Our summer afternoons are hot enough! The reason we bought the lot was largely based on the direction the house would face!

I do hate that entry tunnel. UGH. Although I will say initially it was larger but I added a much needed closet. But since I hope not to sell it, I can deal with it. We have staked this plan off on our land and I actually like the flow. Since we are in a very rural area, we know most people who come to the door and its never in the front, almost always without knocking too.

:>)

I'm confused as to why everyone keeps saying I am fixed on a square house. That plan isn't square, it's a rectangle! It's not a huge difference but by no means equal on all sides. Please stay tuned for updated drawing and elevation. Will make sure all windows and dimensions are present!

So it isn't square, it is much more square than a (average, normal) house. I went through this building at the beach. It is better to be square from a hurricane and wind standpoint. It is ideal to be circular actually - but that is pretty hard. In the end, I went with 40x25 because square was terrible for flow and sunlight into rooms. I would consider 40x35 to be square even if it wasn't really.

I think you have a pretty clear contrast in the more rectangular house drawn for you and your plans. I know, I know - both are rectangles, but you can feel the differences in the flow.

Sqft for sqft, you will get more southern exposure with a more rectangular house. You can build lower ceilings and still get light all the way in the house. You can build smaller windows and still get light in the house. Lower ceiling and smaller windows are cheaper to build.

mrspete's design is significantly smaller in sq footage, but works better. It's also simpler to build. Those items fit better with your stated goals, and resolves your entry issue to boot! And as David points out - you increase that great southern exposure.

Why even have the front door entry that no one will use? Why not put in a foyer on the side of the house next to the kitchen with a coat closet? Those are the details that an architect, if you have one, or you, if you don't, should take care of so you aren't settling for something that makes no sense.

Mainly because of the look on the front. Trust me I know it sounds crazy. I think I'd rather have a weird hallway than be stuck with an exterior I don't love.

M Jacks: "I'm confused as to why everyone keeps saying I am fixed on a square house."

Maybe because yesterday you wrote: "3. Maybe you missed the statement about us doing work ourselves but the square design saves a ton of money. I'm not into wasted corners and multiple roof lines." ?

I've been playing with a small squarish house design myself lately. Like you I want all windows/southern exposure/public spaces across the back. Trying to design for furniture placement, especially for watching tv, is getting frustrating. My simple little later-in-life home design is getting longer. I don't want to block glorious windows, but I don't want my sofa backed smack against the kitchen either!

Good luck to you on your build whatever you decide to do. :)

I think mrspete's plan is far superior to yours for all the reasons stated. My only change to her plan would be to flip the house so the kitchen faces east and south and the bedroom is west.

Please consider working with hers, plus what you might save in building costs with your plan, you'll make up in heating and cooling savings with her plan because of the better south exposure. Notice how your plan has almost as much east/west exposure as your north/south. Now compare it to mrspete's design where the majority of the exposure is north/south vs a much smaller footprint east/west.

Oh yes I did that just to respond and not call out anyone! I should have in hindsight. ;) I have definitely thought about the furniture placement and wondered if I would have issues. This is the inspiration I have had for a long time as far as layout. I'm not a huge fan of having a large TV as the focal point in my living room so I will probably find a way to hide it behind art or built in. But with all the windows, it does limit furniture arrangements!!

While I do agree to change the amount of exposure to the East, mrspete's design isn't quite where I am leaning. Obviously it's not even comparable and much better but at the same time it takes a lot of space away from several areas. I think we can all agree, as it's been stated over and over, that I am in no way experienced at designing a house. I'm a stay at home mom with an Art History degree who wants to have a cool spot to raise my kids and not be tied down to a ridiculous mortgage.

Your inspiration is more like mrspete's layout than your layout. The difference is in the bedroom at the end. So the question is how can you combine the more open public area with windows on three sides like you're hoping to achieve with mrspete's more user friendly layout. And do it all so you do not have a ridiculous mortgage. It can be done but it takes really creative thinking outside the box.

That is the difference in our designs. I'm not closed to the idea of the bedroom at the end and losing the windows on the end as long as I have enough windows to the south.

I am taking it all in. Every suggestion!! Currently playing with the idea of moving the dining to front to open up the front. I've extended the length and shortened the width so less exposure to the east but this is a challenge!

Ok yes I see the confusion with the square! I definitely need to work on typing out my thoughts more clearly...

Am I crazy to want my common areas all on facing south where the view is the best? I realize I could make this so much easier by not doing that but I'm not sure I would be happy with the outcome.

My point is: take the time to get it right. You can control cost, quality, and schedule. The perfect combination of low cost, high quality, and fast schedule is unobtainable

Or, to quote a carpenter I know: Fast. Good. Cheap. Pick two.

If you haven't already done so, may I suggest you read the book The Not So Big House by Sarah Susanka? It's well worth it.

Am I crazy to want my common areas all on facing south where the view is the best?

No you're being very smart. Not only so you can partake of the best views but also to lower heating and cooling bills with passive solar heating/cooling.

Re front door: you have it in your head that the front door needs to be on that exterior wall. You can change your thoughts and say you are going to figure out how to turn the door by the kitchen into a pleasant and welcoming entry way into the house for family and guests that looks good from the outside as well. If you were building a McMansion you could just add a 3 story octagonal turret with a widow's walk (just kidding -- sorta). Harder with a small house.

Better, yes. I think the master BR would benefit from rearranging the doors and windows a bit for better furniture placement. I realize this might compromise your front exterior. Perhaps add another foot or so to the BR from the the closet and bath, move doorways, using pocket door for closet. This would result in more space for furniture, if that's important to you.

No not better. I wouldn't want to be staying in the second bedroom and have to go into the foyer to use the bathroom!

Plus I'm sorry, I do not want to have the doors to the bedrooms right off public rooms so when others are sitting in the kitchen they can look into my bedroom, or the same with the living room and guest bedroom.

Additionally, you went from a 3 bedroom house down to a 2 bedroom? What is it you really want?

And you're using up one corner for a utility room??? How will that be like your inspiration picture?

Having a CAD program doesn't make you a designer or architect, anymore than having a thermometer to take your temperature when you're sick makes you a Doctor!

You're sticking boxes willy nilly on the interior without thought to how they'll work in real life. You need to work with a person of design talent. Designing something that looks simple is not that easy.

Having a CAD program doesn't make you a designer or architect, anymore than having a thermometer to take your temperature when you're sick makes you a Doctor!

In my world, when clients do that we call it, "practicing license without a medicine." :-D

Cp, he is adding two bedrooms upstairs, so it will be a 4-bedroom.

Is the foot of the stairs next to the guest room door, or is it by the LR wall? If the latter, you lose a good bit of LR space and furniture placement flexibility, because a walkway is needed to get too and from the stairs.

As a guest, I would feel most uncomfortable with my bedroom right off the family living space, and with walking into the LR, around the corner to the front door, for the bathroom.

I don't see a problem with the laundry placement. The kitchen layout wouldn't allow a window on that side, anyway. But I totally do not want my bedroom opening off the kitchen. Why not have the guest and master bedroom doors open off the top of the foyer?

I completely agree about the bedrooms and bathroom in foyer! I've looked at it more and feel the same. I think the bathroom placement came from having a window and bedroom door being accessible. Tossing that design out!
But actually a bedroom has been added upstairs as stated.
And while I completely agree I need designer help, and plan to, do you hire someone to do every job you were not educated to do? Painted a room without hiring a painter? Chosen a savings account without a financial advisor? Landscaped your yard without a landscaper? Changed your oil? Remodeled a bathroom? Planned a wedding? I could go on and on. I really do not see the harm in knowing what I want before I meet with another designer. I have learned more from this thread than I did with the last I met with. I want to have a firm grasp on being economical and energy efficient.

And while I completely agree I need designer help, and plan to, do you hire someone to do every job you were not educated to do? Painted a room without hiring a painter? Chosen a savings account without a financial advisor? Landscaped your yard without a landscaper? Changed your oil? Remodeled a bathroom? Planned a wedding?

There is a big difference between what you've mostly mentioned and what requires additional schooling and training.

You don't need to go to college, and get licensed to paint a room, landscape your yard, choose a savings account, change your oil, or plan a wedding.

You do need higher education and learning for things that can impact your life significantly. For example, you go to the doctor because you assume he/she has many years additional schooling and training to correctly diagnose and treat you, and if needed operate on you.

Same with a dentist.

You use a lawyer because only a fool will represent him or herself in court.

You use an architect because they too have the schooling and the years after schooling where they learn how to make a house or building work well both in terms of looks and flow and they hopefully understand the systems in the house and how to make sure the house won't fall down around you.

I really do not see the harm in knowing what I want before I meet with another designer.

I agree 100%. However there's a bid difference between learning what you want vs trying to design your house. Your time would be better spent reading lots of the threads here, and reading the myriad of books related to houses. And as you've started to do, spend time making idea books of what you like, what is important to you, etc.

In fact there's an excellent thread on here about creating a bubble diagram. That is something you should absolutely bring to your architect when you meet with him/her.

I learned more from this thread than I did with the last I met with. I want to have a firm grasp on being economical and energy efficient.

Did you meet with a designer who in reality is just a glorified draftsman or did you meet with a real person of design talent or an architect? There is a big difference.

I'm going with glorified draftsman based on his recommendations...

I appreciate the advice from everyone! Will be consulting in person from now on and staying off the Internet.

Best of luck to you. Many draftsman also are great with design. Hoping the one you found has design skills too and can give you everything you wish.