How can I make kitchen bigger?

weeg

My best guess (and I'm an SE who designs timber framed new builds as part of my job) is that it's *probably* not holding up the first floor, but is stabilising the external wall and house overall against wind.

Do not take it away until you have something in writing from the developer's (or an independant) structural engineer.

That aside, have you ever lived in a house where everyone is constantly traipsing through the kitchen? It's annoying and the cooking smells will just permeate everywhere. But that's just my personal opinion.

Racky_Roo

I have a PIV air system in my new build so no, that layout doesn’t cause my house to smell of cooking. A lot of new builds come with them now so the stairs being open isn’t an issue with it. 

Rosa_Damascena

Racky_Roo said:

I have a PIV air system in my new build so no, that layout doesn’t cause my house to smell of cooking. A lot of new builds come with them now so the stairs being open isn’t an issue with it. 

Is it really any better than throwing all windows open? I'd cook a lot more if it wasn't such a smelly process.

Racky_Roo

It’s certainly keeps your house a lot warmer than opening windows 

GaleSF63

Could you consider something less permanent than an island, for example a good-sized, good quality butcher's trolley?

Doozergirl

I don't know how I missed the third storey the first time around.  I just didn't see it in its little bubble.  

You can't take out the wall, because Building Regulations.  You need a fire escape route that is protected from the kitchen (because the kitchen is the most fire vulnerable
room) - hence the hallway.  If you take that wall out, it will be spotted by a surveyor immediately when you go to sell and highlighted as a problem.  

The only way you can have your escape through the kitchen is by installing a sprinkler system through the house - a
large and expensive job that it obviously best done when there are no ceilings in! 

Your developer is in no way qualified to tell you that it's okay to take a wall out from
a structural perspective when it's
blindingly obvious to any builder on site why the hallway is there. Admittedly, I might need to go to Specsavers after missing it on the page, but the physical evidence on site would have been obvious.  

I'd have real concerns about buying this house.  The design is far too top heavy.   Downstairs is a real let down when they've carved it up and lost you 25-30% of it,
leaving you with 28 square metres of daytime space in a house that is supposed to be 108 metres big.  I mean, why would anyone want three en-suites but a tiny living space?   

Three storey houses can give you space that is more affordable than the equivalent size of two storey house, but the design should be thoughtful.  I just can't fathom this design out as everything has to fit around this central, oversized hallway, compromising every single room.  I'm not sure, by the time you remove the hallway spaces, how much this house gains you over a two storey house on the same footprint.  Anyone fancy adding up all the habitable room dimensions and seeing how close they are to the 80 square metres of the ground and first floors? 

Even the top floor has a massive landing.  If they'd put the door at the bottom of the stairs, you'd benefit from the space of the entire top floor as a bedroom, but no, they've carved it up.  They really don't care.  It just had to have four toilets and the prospective owner unable to have a family dining table and wondering if they can own a decent sized bed.   

Have you seen this house style actually built? 

Section62

Doozergirl said:

I don't know how I missed the third storey the first time around.  I just didn't see it in its little bubble.  

You can't take out the wall, because Building Regulations.  You need a fire escape route that is protected from the kitchen (because the kitchen is the most fire vulnerable
room) - hence the hallway.  If you take that wall out, it will be spotted by a surveyor immediately when you go to sell and highlighted as a problem.

I spotted that, which is why I asked whether the developer had explained compliance with building regs to the OP.  But then later...

Section62 said:

The plan suggests the wall between the kitchen and hallway has an opening rather than a doorway.  Which suggests the designers were happy that other aspects of BR (e.g. spread of fire and smoke, means of escape) were met without needing a door on the kitchen.  In which case, the question to be asked is why the designers felt it was a good idea (/necessary) to put a wall here in the first place.  The OP probably isn't alone in thinking the layout would be better without that wall, and on the face of it the cost of building it (in each and every house of that design) is an unnecessary expense which doesn't aesthetically/practically improve the property from a prospective purchaser POV.

So what is it doing there.....?

....if the floor plans are correct I can't see how that great wide opening makes a significant difference compared to having an open-plan space.  The protection to the escape route is minimal.  There's something not right, or the designers have done something (sprinklers?) to achieve compliance which isn't apparent from the plan.

Doozergirl said:

Three storey houses can give you space that is more affordable than the equivalent size of two storey house, but the design should be thoughtful.  I just can't fathom this design out as everything has to fit around this central, oversized hallway, compromising every single room.  I'm not sure, by the time you remove the hallway spaces, how much this house gains you over a two storey house on the same footprint.

It's this which makes me lean towards the wall having a structural function - about the only way I could explain the design choices is if the layout has been done to fit round the structural requirements, rather than designing the structure to the optimal layout.

There's another oddity with the en-suite to bedroom 2.  The rear wall of that is set in, rather than being in line with and above the back walls of bedroom 2 and the lounge.  That presumably means the external walls of the en-suite and the side of bedroom 2 are built off some kind of structural members in the first floor - there's surely got to be a beam spanning the lounge in one direction or the other.  If it spans the shorter direction (logical) then the wall between the kitchen/diner and lounge has to be structural to support that end of the beam. (but there's no indication on the floorplan to suggest that wall has a pier or anything to provide the necessary bearing?).

I'd like to see a picture of the back of the house to understand why they have designed the en-suite that way. It feels like they have created a need for additional structural work - and lost some potential floor space - for no apparent reason.  And then fitting the en-suite shower into that small space has meant taking a bite out of bedroom 2.  It just doesn't make sense.

Doozergirl

Section62 said:

Doozergirl said:

I don't know how I missed the third storey the first time around.  I just didn't see it in its little bubble.  

You can't take out the wall, because Building Regulations.  You need a fire escape route that is protected from the kitchen (because the kitchen is the most fire vulnerable
room) - hence the hallway.  If you take that wall out, it will be spotted by a surveyor immediately when you go to sell and highlighted as a problem.

I spotted that, which is why I asked whether the developer had explained compliance with building regs to the OP.  But then later...

Section62 said:

The plan suggests the wall between the kitchen and hallway has an opening rather than a doorway.  Which suggests the designers were happy that other aspects of BR (e.g. spread of fire and smoke, means of escape) were met without needing a door on the kitchen.  In which case, the question to be asked is why the designers felt it was a good idea (/necessary) to put a wall here in the first place.  The OP probably isn't alone in thinking the layout would be better without that wall, and on the face of it the cost of building it (in each and every house of that design) is an unnecessary expense which doesn't aesthetically/practically improve the property from a prospective purchaser POV.

So what is it doing there.....?

....if the floor plans are correct I can't see how that great wide opening makes a significant difference compared to having an open-plan space.  The protection to the escape route is minimal.  There's something not right, or the designers have done something (sprinklers?) to achieve compliance which isn't apparent from the plan.

Doozergirl said:

Three storey houses can give you space that is more affordable than the equivalent size of two storey house, but the design should be thoughtful.  I just can't fathom this design out as everything has to fit around this central, oversized hallway, compromising every single room.  I'm not sure, by the time you remove the hallway spaces, how much this house gains you over a two storey house on the same footprint.

It's this which makes me lean towards the wall having a structural function - about the only way I could explain the design choices is if the layout has been done to fit round the structural requirements, rather than designing the structure to the optimal layout.

There's another oddity with the en-suite to bedroom 2.  The rear wall of that is set in, rather than being in line with and above the back walls of bedroom 2 and the lounge.  That presumably means the external walls of the en-suite and the side of bedroom 2 are built off some kind of structural members in the first floor - there's surely got to be a beam spanning the lounge in one direction or the other.  If it spans the shorter direction (logical) then the wall between the kitchen/diner and lounge has to be structural to support that end of the beam. (but there's no indication on the floorplan to suggest that wall has a pier or anything to provide the necessary bearing?).

I'd like to see a picture of the back of the house to understand why they have designed the en-suite that way. It feels like they have created a need for additional structural work - and lost some potential floor space - for no apparent reason.  And then fitting the en-suite shower into that small space has meant taking a bite out of bedroom 2.  It just doesn't make sense.

What you wrote before didn't state anything about the third storey, so I didn't read anything into it.  It's within the regs for there not to be a door on the kitchen in a two storey house.  

If you're given a blank piece of paper, you  don't need to design a house with the staircase far from the front door just from the point of view of maximising living space, let alone making it structurally integral.  

At this point, I don't care what is structural.  Anything can be supported if you throw a bit of money at it, but I think the whole house is a terrible design and a waste of expensive space.  

In fact, I'm going to add up the room sizes now... 

Doozergirl

Floor space over 3 floors = 108
Floor space over 2 floors = 80

Living space = 28 
Bedrooms = 36.5
Bathrooms = 11
Total = 75.5 

Make an allowance for some stairs and remove one ensuite and you've bought a house with the living space of a better designed two storey house. 

What's the price difference between this and one over 2 floors?   

Sofee3

Could you maybe do a peninsula bit sticking out with a couple of stools at other side? You need a 1 meter gap at end of peninsula, then at least you have some more usable worktop space, but still have room for dining table and chairs.