Again, macv's and the other's designs are prohibited from use under the International Residential Code if they access habitable spaces. I recently prosecuted a local builder/developer over just such an issue and won. The builder/developer came in with a set of plans for a 6 unit townhouse with a mezzanine level above the 2nd floor that was access by a "library ladder" from the 2nd floor atrium/foyer....Very similar to some of those shown here. The mezzanine was labeled on the plans as 'storage' and the design approved because this loft was not going to be used as habitable space. Once the units were built, and the Certificates to Occupy were issued, the builder/developer signed a contract with a local realtor to show the units. That's where the trouble for the builder/developer began. I was directed to the realtor's website where for her 'staging' she had arranged this mezzanine area as a habitable area, complete with sofas, living room furniture and day beds. These were permitted as 3 bedroom townhouses, yet the realtor's description of the units indicated they were 4 bedroom homes...the mezzanine clearly being listed as an additional sleeping space. The result: Our office revoked the certificates of occupancy and ordered the builder to either replace the 'library ladders' with stairs that met the code, or to stop advertising these units as 'bedrooms' with habitable mezzanines. The builder/developer objected and filed an appeal with the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board, once seeing the false advertising, concluded as well that the builder/developer had intended all along to use these levels as habitable space and provided false information to our code office. The Appeals Board ordered the builder/developer to do exactly as we had ordered: change the library ladders to code compliant stairs since it was obvious their intended use was as habitable space. The builder/developer did not stop there, however. He filed suit, but unfortunately for him, lost again. The judge agreeing that these lofts were indeed intended as habitable space, and that the builder/developer must comply with our order or face daily fines until he did. The result: The builder/developer had to not only pay for all the costs associated with his challenges, in the end he was forced to install code compliant spiral stairs in order to have a certificate to occupy each townhouse reinstated. About $50,000 more. Moral of the story: The CODES prevail when it comes to designs acceptable for compliance, not the whims or imagination of designers, builders, developers, realtors or anyone else. macv's mis-use of the Code is apparant even as he tries to support his erroneous positions by stating from it. While it is true that 'alternative designs' are allowed, it is NOT TRUE that these alternate designs can violate the prescriptive intent of the Code. macv's link from the IRC section R104.11 rightly states: 'The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code....." But macv is forgetting entirely that R104.11 also mandates: "... provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method and work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least equivalent of that of the prescribed code." NONE of the designs illustrated by macv and others provide methods "at least equivalent" to that of the prescriptive code requirement for residential stairs. None. They are designs that are LESS RESTRICTIVE and therefore unfit to be "approved". -------------- I don't have time to point out macv's flawed use of the other code sections he cites....none of which even pertain at to residential habitable spaces. That said, I work in an office that employs 32 code inspectors all of whom are former trade professionals. The collective experience of all these men and women in the building and code inspection professions is many hundreds of years. I showed macv's photos to my colleagues today, where they were met utter amazamement that someone could be so wrong in his insistance he was right. Few were surprised, however, because we see it all the time from some designers. Their conclusion: macv's and the other unsafe 'ladder' designs ARE prohibited from being used to access habitable spaces in residential buildings. So don't be mislead and don't take my word for it. Talk to your local code professionals. After all, it is THEY who issue your permits and THEY who approve your designs. And by the way, The Appeals Board that rejected the builder/developer's "ladder"? Made up entirely of local engineers and local architects.... Not sure why some are dead set on misleading the readers of this thread, but I'll give them cresit where credit is due: they are quite good at it.

Some good ideas here! The only "con" I can see to moving the door down the hallway is that then the only "powder room" downstairs would be inside your DD's room...unless you are planning on having guests come through your bedroom to use yours, they would no longer have an entry into bathroom without going into someone's bedroom. I'm with the others on linen closet taking precedence though! Now MY idea ;~) is that I'd do almost anything to move the entry door from the garage out of the laundry room. Having lived with it both ways I absolutely love being able to close the laundry room off sometimes and not having to walk past piles or baskets of laundry coming into the house. Look at how the door in from the garage and the door from laundry room to house interfere with each other...at the very least I would put a pocket door on the laundry room instead....but I'd also play with arrangements of the laundry room and the coat closet and think about having the door from the garage go directly into the house!

live wire oak is probably right for modern homes... but personally I think it depends on the location. In neighborhoods full of small capes (lots of them here in Maine!) those would be sizeable bedrooms; and in neighborhoods where larger families need to live on smaller incomes (read: smaller houses) then what you're proposing might make perfect sense. But if all the other hosues are new-build, big American houses, maybe not. Our house is a 50's house and all the spaces are small compared to new builds. Then the PO added a master suite in the 90's that wasn't very well thought out. The master bedroom was long and skinny: 13.5 feet wide by about 25' long. It was really difficult to configure furniture in there, just felt strange. So we chopped the end of it off and made it into a home office (or very small bedroom/nursery). It actually feels a lot more "right" in the context of the scale of the rest of the house. FWIW, we came from a 1920's house where bedrooms were about 11 x 10 or smaller. So the 12 x 14 and 13.5 x 14.5 bedrooms we have now seem quite luxurious. Then again, we also lived on a 38' sailboat for 2 years, so I might not be the right person to ask ;)

LisaMac- JuneKnow knows. What is that saying about throwing good money after bad? Not that your house is bad of course, it is perfectly fine as is, but just not for your current needs. It would be great for another family at a different stage of life. Do you think you can just hold on and do a serious search for a one-story home? Would you be willing to look outside your immediate neighborhood to find it? How aggressive would you be to look? If I were in your shoes now, I would drive around every single weekend and if you see a ranch house that looks to be the size you want, slip under the door and in the mail box index cards you had printed that says something like, "My husband and I really like your house! If you are thinking of selling your home, please contact us, we are interested in purchasing it to live in, please contact us. Sally and Joe Blow, Phone, email." Then you may get contacted by the owner or the real estate agent as these people decide to sell, or if they pass away. You can also contact a real estate agent that specializes in the geographic area you want and tell him/her that you need a one story home and specify the other things you need, e.g another full bathroom and bedroom not right next to the master but not at the other end of the house that will allow you to dress without awakening your husband. Or whatever it is that you want. For sure, you are not the only couple with different schedules, you may find what you are looking for. The other thing is, assuming you are willing to sell your house and buy another house that is all on one floor. Are you willing to compromise to get that one-floor house, such as less bedrooms? Even if grandchildren sleep over, you can use bunk beds, kids love those. Even bunk beds with trundle beds. If your husband needs a workshop you can have one added to the back yard with a big shed with electricity added to it unless you find that miracle of a three car garage. So you can do a three bedroom house instead of a 4. it is something to think about, because it seems the pros here have told you that you can't achieve the re-model you want with the money you have to spend on it. (One thing you should know, just because someone doesn't have PRO next to their name doesn't mean they aren't a professional. Some people prefer to be anonymous.)