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.

If we do this, we are going to stay there for at least 5 yrs or more, who knows... But since we are going to remodel kitchen/bathroom at the same time, so we of course will stay there for long. In order to make it a loft, I will have to break down one wall only (w/ the door and the electrical outlet/switch). So it will cost money to move the electrical outlet to the other wall. And since it is one wall, I don't think it is that hard to put it up again if the future owner doesn't like a loft, but again, I don't know how much it cost to build a wall, you know... I just don't want to create a mess and regret later... So I would like you opinion. And anyone who has a loft upstair, do you think it is useful? I am afraid that we make a loft, and still go downstair for activities :-(

I had a loft in grad school. It was not very high, and I used the space under it for storage. I did not "go under" except on those occasions that I needed to access the less used items. The accessible side (it was a twin in a corner) had a chest of drawers and a rod for hanging clothes. (The closet in my room was tiny by any standards in the last 80 years.) To get to the infrequently used stuff, I had to compress the hanging clothes and 'crawl' behind (a la The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.) It sounds like you might n�ed to have yours a bit lower. Depending on your layout, putting your dresser under one side and office storage or side desk on the other, might free up some space. Some pictures, dimensions, and how you use your office space would help me (and probably others) give you feedback.

Personal opinion and nothing else: Typically I'd say "make the bedrooms smaller -- I don't spend much time in there anyway"; however, in either situation, you're talking about small bedrooms -- is the master one of these small bedrooms? My kids have 12x12 rooms, and over the years my girls've had 1 twin ... 2 twins ... and 1 double ... but never anything bigger, and you're talking about smaller rooms! Add-on question: What kind of closets do these bedrooms have? A bedroom with plenty of good storage can be smaller and still be comfortable, whereas if your closet is modest, you need space for larger dressers and other storage. Having said that, if you're a typical 4-person family, I don't really see the point in having more than two bathrooms. They're expensive, high-maintenance rooms -- I want enough bathrooms for comfort, but I don't care to over-bath myself; I just don't enjoy cleaning toilets that much. An outside-the-box thought: If you'd JUST build the third bathroom for resale, you might consider leaving that room "empty" /use it as storage ... and in the future you'd have the option of finishing it off yourself ... or it could be presented to future buyers as "a room that could be renovated into a bathroom". That would also allow the future buyers the option of using that small space as a pocket office, a craft room, or whatever ... if it suited their purposes better. In conclusion, I suspect the 4/3 layout would be better for you at resale time ... but you're talking about trying to guess the mind of some unknown person, which is impossible. Build the one that'll suit your family best now.