Book Recommendations on Drawing Floor Plans?
I am a carpenter by trade, and I’m trying to design and build my own high-performance home. I have a background in high-performance remodeling, additions, and new construction, and I’ve read a few books on the science, like Pretty Good House and Towards a Zero Energy Home, as well as some architectural books like Get Your House Right, and some Francis DK Ching books, but I haven’t found a good book on drawing floor plans specifically. I read Open Concept Houses by Francesc Zamora, which had some different examples with pictures and floor plans but it didn’t go into detail about considerations for function, flow, solar orientation, etc.
I know generally what I’d like in terms of size, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, high-performance details, an open concept kitchen / living room, a study / library, a balcony, a sunroom or just a bay window if sunroom turns out to be cost prohibitive, a deck, but I’m not sure about putting it all together. I have ideas but since I didn’t go to school for architecture and it’s such a large financial investment, it feels like a lot to design. We could hire an architect, but I like the idea of doing as much as possible myself. Any book suggestions would be appreciated.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
AGoldstein,
At risk of a firestorm.
People are the same, but different. We eat, sleep, wash, etc. in the same ways, but different. Differences that define our rooms and homes. Homes are the same, but different. I doubt one book could begin to define how to draw floor plans except perhaps the guide manual for architectural software. At that, there still would not be much help provided for how rooms go together to make a home. Not to make it sound all mystical, but I believe a certain amount of thoughtful introspection before engaging with many of the books out there will be of the greatest help.
It is okay to feel daunted by the design process because it is daunting. Hopefully, you are starting planning well in advance of any commitments. Your age is unclear, but if this will not be your long term home, you will be best served by not designing a too idiosyncratic plan. Weird houses re-sell slowly and under market. However, with your background, you have a leg up on many people doing a custom plan. You probably know already that some features like crazy long cantilevers or twenty foot tall window walls are off the table. Your desire to build a high performance home shouldn't rule out any favored aesthetic choices. The dress-up part of a house design is largely an overlay on what should be your best livable vision. Still, there are a gazillion ways to stitch together rooms.
I am sure you will soon get many recommendations for books that emphasize various design philosophies and or technical bents often disguised as philosophies that will save the planet or your soul. I have a number of these books in my library. They can be helpful, but I ultimately found that a statement driven house plan does not necessarily make a good home.
For my own planning journey, I ultimately found that first closely observing my own and my spouses habits and preferences provided more useful input than reading doctrinaire. At the very least you will generate a framework of (typically) divergent needs and wants that will mold your final plan. You will likely find communicating why something is important or feels right the most trying aspect of a close self review. It is even more trying when engaging with others.
I suggest that first you review how you live in your current home. How you share (or don't) that space with spouse or family and how you feel about your place there. Then ask how do other family members think or feel about their spaces. It may all be perfect. It may come out that the open kitchen smells and dirty dish views has always been a sore point unstated since nothing could be changed. Maybe the morning sun really bothers you or spouse. Are you big party givers, quiet introverts, or a blend? What are the personal space habits of yourself, spouse and family? Bathtubs? Showers? Sink hogs? It can be a somewhat trying path to elicit genuine responses, so be prepared for confusion over what you are getting at when framing the questions. (Ha, ha, ask me how I know.)
If you survive this initial foray into what aspects of your new plan are critical and which are just magazine dreams then you might look to The Not So Big House by Sarah Suzanka first. Her books offer a solid guide worth reading AFTER you have established the personal needs and wants that will direct YOUR design choices. My wife and I visited a few of her homes in Illinois and personally, we could not live in one, as thoughtfully done as they were. Luck and timing allowed us to complete our design before building costs quadrupled. Plus I did a lot of the management and detailing myself. Our room sizes would appall her.
Hiring an architect may be best if you do not feel comfortable with overall aesthetic issues once you have a "plan" in mind. If you can't draw a satisfying plan first, then presenting a weighted listing of needs and wants will greatly speed up dialogue between you and an architect. There will still be a mountain of details to address. Depending on your local conditions, engineer stamped plans may be required along with specific HVAC and other sign offs. Many more potential points on siting and water management.
Reviewing plans on line or in books can be somewhat helpful if you can make the imagination jump into them. Unfortunately, like the residents of Flatland, not having a third dimension changes everything. Just the same, the mental work of imagining moving about a flat plan will enhance your perceptions of moving about your current home. Also handy if you are visiting model homes and need to see past the glitz.
If you have the time, using a good software like Chief Architect will allow for 3D views and much more. The glass house feature is especially valuable for spotting glitches in heating and plumbing choices. Lower level software choices still offer ways to put a "face" on your plans as they evolve. Generating sun paths on exteriors and even interiors is possible on many.
Hope all the verbiage doesn't dissuade you. The task you are setting for yourself can be very satisfying once done. It does take time.
What an insightful post - putting the occupants at the center of the discussion.
I have been on a similar path of inquiry for the last couple years. Not a working carpenter, builder, or architect, just an interested, reasonably competent DIY homeowner who reads a lot. I'm still at the 'vision' stage, with no pressing need to move or do anything right now, just trying to look ahead. I've been mostly interested in the building science and practicalities of various building assemblies, but I agree that the human factors need to take precedence.
You're absolutely right that the people sharing a life and home can have different preferences, habits, and priorities. Some like the coziness of being closely surrounded with lots of furniture and assorted ornamental elements, while others prioritize open space and lightweight, moveable furnishings, believing that too much stuff makes the home feel crowded and limiting. Do you see yourself as landed, or do you identify as nomadic (whether in reality or imagination)? Some like to dedicate spaces to specific activities; some like to keep the space more 'ad-hoc' to permit different uses as circumstances may dictate (thinking mainly of the communal areas here). People have different ideas of what looks good or what feels right. I have read that much of this comes from your experiences in the home(s) you grew up in. Could be true.
My apologies to the OP; I doubt I helped you much.
Thanks,
Donald Christensen
Deleted
AGoldstein,
I don't want be discouraging, but house design, like carpentry and any other skilled trade, has a learning curve. The second house you design will be appreciably better than the first, and so on. So you probably don't want to end up living in what was your first attempt.
If you look through past discussions here in the Q&A where posters have asked for input, the changes that got made were substantial, remediating problems that weren't apparent to the OP. I'd urge you to get as many ideas down on paper as you can, but at the very least to run your design past a professional designer before committing to it.
There's an adage: "Build your first house for an enemy, your second for a friend and your third for yourself."
I don't know of any books on this topic. I am all for DIYing what you can, and anyone can draw a floor plan, but drawing a GOOD floor plan takes experience. I have drawn thousands of floor plans, with hundreds of them actually built, and I still find things on every single project that I wish I had done differently.
The “Not So Big House” book has some great ideas.
Keep it as simple as possible. Make it rectangular if you have more than one level make them the same size and shape. IE no half stories.
Say yes to photovoltaic. Say no to the attractive failed ideas of the past IE passive and active solar.
Keep your ceiling flat and cover them with lots of cheap fluffy insulation. Say no the cathedral ceiling.
Make the window area less than 15% of the wall area. Say no to large south facing windows and all skylights.
Make room in your plan for your HVAC inside the conditioned space! So no equipment or ductwork in the attic.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=not+so+big+house&hvadid=409960870507&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9022854&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15736417571834562343&hvtargid=kwd-131495322&hydadcr=24659_11410797&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_7kl8t5xk5s_e
Walta
While it is not a book, I would recommend this site:
https://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/
There is a lot of content on there, and while not specific to your question, there is a lot of information on the design process, things not to do, and all other aspects of architecture.
Designing a house is more about the design process than something that tells you do this or that. There are obviously don’ts (though maybe subjective). You will also find a whole list of recommended reading on there as well. Also, on a whole, I think most of the uploaded floor plans on here have undergone very beneficial modifications, I would recommend doing that.
Another good book on the design process is the design of everyday things, by don norman.
You've already read Get Your House Right, but just to re-emphasize some points in that book I would start with the exterior façade/elevations and then work on the floor plan. Some iterations will be required but the exterior should be your starting point in general. Think about where the windows from the exterior plan will fall with your floor plan. Do you have windows in all the bedrooms? Do you have or want windows in the primary bathroom or kitchen, etc? That book is fantastic for window sizing tips and scale from the first story to the second if you are doing more than one level.
matthew25,
" I would start with the exterior façade/elevations and then work on the floor plan."
I have a hard time imagining how to do that. Design is definitely a dance between plans, elevations, and sections, but the starting point is invariably the plan.
If you've got any buddies who are architects / design professionals, I'd recommend buying them a couple beers and riffing on ideas. I think you could line out some solid ideas with a few napkin sketches, then you develop them more on your own, then put them back in front of some trained eyes, lather rinse repeat. The more iterations you can blow through on paper, the more likely you are to be satisfied with the result. I think it was FLW who said something like, it's faster to make changes with a pencil than it is with a sledgehammer.
This
But instead of napkins buy some trace paper...
Paul,
Why stop there? Maybe your excavator buddy will do the site work for a case of beer. Then your builder buddies can stop by from time to time and frame it for free...
Freyr, definitely trace paper over napkins.
Malcolm, hah! Point well taken.
I enjoy riffing on friends' designs over drinks, but I also enjoy being able to finish the drink, go home, and not put any more time into it. Free friendly feedback among colleagues (ex: this forum, which is a goldmine of great feedback from knowledgeable pros) is good, free work is bad. Admittedly, it can be a tricky thing to navigate and ensure that "asking for feedback" doesn't turn into "do this work for me."
Maybe a clearer way to me to have expressed what I meant would be:
Get something on paper. Run ideas by friends/colleagues in the local design/building community; keep it light, welcome criticism, ask for ideas and not solutions/drafting/free design. Continue to iterate, and get as many eyes on the design as possible throughout the process.
Paul,
Sorry, I meant the response to come across as humorous, and think I missed the mark a bit - but yes I did want to suggest that maybe crowdsourcing work that should be paid needs to be done with all the parties agreement.
Thanks for all the input, everyone. Onslow, that is a good point about idiosyncratic design. I know houses with them don't sell well and resale value is definitely a consideration for me. It likely won’t be my forever home as I’m 34 and want to travel a great deal and perhaps settle in different areas. Fortunately, I like simple designs done well that aren’t overly ornate and follow the classical orders, and those tend to sell well. Though it seems like nowadays most people want the most modern mcmansions that look as unique and visually busy as possible regardless of practical or visual sensibility. Some Craftsmen style homes appeal to me. I like a symmetrical façade. I’m thinking about a simple rectangular shape or an ell not just for aesthetic reasons but from an energy standpoint I know a more complicated massing and roof has greater surface area to lose energy and it’s more work to air seal.
I would like to build in a very rural on arable land close to the mountains and forest where I can grow my own food, which I’m concerned may make it hard to sell. Of course, it’s easier to sell a house in the suburbs or the city. We’re not thinking of building in the middle of nowhere, but I like privacy and being surrounded by nature, so likely a piece of farmland that’s not too far a city would be ideal. That’s a great suggestion about observing habits. I will get a copy of the Not So Big House and check out Chief Architect.
Don, I think that’s true that the house you grew up in shapes your preferences. I find myself taking design elements from the house I grew up in. I like open, clean design, because it feels less confining to me than small rooms and lots of interior walls. But I think in some rooms like a family room having things in closer proximity adds intimacy, which can be nice. I would say I’m more grounded than nomadic though I love to travel.
Micheal, I’m sure at least a few things I design I’ll wish I had done differently after it’s built. That’s one of my concerns. But it’s good to know even an expert architect has it too.
Malcolm, you may be right that I won’t end up wanting to live in my first house. That thought takes the pressure off somehow. I think since I am committed to building it right, even if I don’t like it, someone will.
Walta, I plan to have roof solar panels or an array on the ground that powers the house, so that it is completely off grid. I’m planning on getting a composting septic tank as well. In terms of south facing windows, it depends on the hemisphere and climate you’re living in. In the northern hemisphere, southern facing windows with high SHGC add heat, helpful in the winter. In the southern hemisphere to get passive solar energy you want north facing windows, unless you don’t want passive solar because your climate is always clement. But I love the sun, so though windows come with an energy penalty (seeing as they’re less insulating than walls with insulation) I like a lot of natural light and to feel connected to the outdoors.
Great suggestion, Paul, it's a lot cheaper to make changes with a pencil than it is with a sledgehammer too. If only I had an excavator friend that would work for a case of beer.
You sound like you'd be a good candidate for purchasing plans.
Why do you say that?
It's not your "forever home," resale value is important to you and you've never designed a house before.
Even if you start with canned plans and then modify them. There are so many details to a house that getting a head start really helps.
I was thinking the same thing. If it’s not your ‘forever home’ I really can’t understand why you’d want to subject yourself to designing and building a custom home. As someone currently in the midst of construction… save yourself. If it’s your full time passion, go for it… but if you’re at all concerned about budget getting plans and maybe customizing them as needed would be the way to go!
DC,
Agreed. A couple of years ago the owner of this lot asked me if I would do contract drawings and some minor modifications to a plan they saw for sale. I suggested that since the company had already done all that work, and was open to changes (and let's just leave aside copyright issues for now) it made no sense to start from scratch when the design met their needs so closely. They followed my advice, ended up with this and are very happy.
Fair point, DC. Looks good Malcolm.
my favorite design books are both old:
a pattern language - chris alexander
Climatic Design: Energy-efficient Building Principals and Practices
you really want to get your arch programming in place before you start designing. the pre-design work will identify the problems that your design will solve.
but you can only go so far without a site.
Deleted
“In terms of south facing windows XXX unless you don’t want passive solar because your climate is always clement.”
I challenge you to build the BEopt model for your home and spin it in every direction. When I did mine it made almost no difference. For me any winter gains were canceled in night time losses. The program is free but be sure to find the YouTube training videos. Passive solar is one of those things that we all want to work in our hearts but has proven to be a failure in real life.
“But I love the sun, so though windows come with an energy penalty (seeing as they’re less insulating than walls with insulation) I like a lot of natural light and to feel connected to the outdoors.”
I agree but 15% is more than enough to capture the view and light more than that is overkill and you will be installing shades. Also since windows are the most expensive line item in most builds keeping them smaller will help control the budget.
Consider paying for your design work. You will end up with a much better home.
https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html
Walta
One of my many regrets in my own build is having a bit too much glazing. I actually forget the % of wall area, I want to calculate now, but it’s too much. The windows were extremely expensive and we had to get black fiberglass frames instead of upgrading to something nicer looking with wood inside. I wish we simplified the design a bit to reduce the number of windows. The natural light is going to be amazing, but it is excessive. It also never occurred to me that someday we will need to repair and eventually replace all of these windows. Architect didn’t exactly discuss that. Plus, some of our windows are so high above the ground I actually have no idea how we will clean them. Windows and doors are critical but spend as much time as you can reducing them down to only what is necessary. The space will be more comfortable year round and highlighting the best views and strategic lighting will make it feel more special that being in a glass box.
The way I see it if more BTUs escape than enter the house on a given day the house gets colder each day. After months of negative days how much the house weighs doesn’t matter it just plan cold and it is going to take a boat load of BTUs to make it warm again.
The BEopt model calculates the BTUs in and out. You can store small percentage of energy in mass but before long you have to replace it.
Lots of very smart people spent tons of money trying to build a workable passive solar home. The majority ended as failures a few declared themselves successes but they have proven to be unrepeatable and unaffordable.
The fact is that if this simple idea actually worked in the real world after all this time it would dominate the market place and every house built today would be passive solar.
There are tons of Ideas that are great until they have to deal with the real world.
Motorcycles are the most efficient personal transportation.
World peace is the best situation for all mankind.
Flying cars will shorten everyone’s commute time.
Self-driving cars will prevent 100% auto collision and deaths.
AI will outsmart all humans.
Walta
Walta, can the Beopt model account for thermal mass walls? I have read that building a masonry wall inside or laying tile that will be exposed to the sunshine from windows will heat the material and gradually release it at night and this could prevent those night-time energy losses. It's true about the expense of windows. I may end up going with less glazing than I'd like for this reason alone.
Just about everything written promoting "thermal mass" is pseudoscience.
It's actually pretty basic science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
Have you been in a room with tile floors or a stone wall that gets direct sunlight? You can feel the heat on them stay with them for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited."
"Thermal mass" checks every box.
Yes, I am aware of the definition of pseudoscience. Do you have sources or studies that show that thermal mass is not scientific?
The scientific method is based on reproducibility, which requires measurement.
What are the units for measuring "thermal mass"?
Thermal mass is just a colloquial term for heat capacity which is J/K.
If buildings didn’t have heat capacity there would be much less stability of temperature as it acts as a buffer. It is like say ph buffers are pseudoscience. It’s why a full fridge modulates temperature without constantly turning on a shutting off. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/refrigerator-freezer-use-and-temperature-tips#:~:text=Keeping%20the%20refrigerator%20and%20freezer,cold%20water%20in%20the%20fridge.
You may be saying that the benefits of thermal mass are overstated in building science but heat capacity is definitely a thing.
I use customary units in all my work so I prefer BTU/F.
If "thermal mass" were just a synonym for heat capacity, it wouldn't bother me, I'm not the language police. People who use that term mean don't always agree on what they're talking about, many mean something else -- a property of certain materials -- it seems like always stone, concrete or brick -- to store and release heat. I've come to call it "magic masonry." And that's where the pseudo-science is -- the claims made are unquantifiable and unmeasurable.
And it has real-world impact. We've had posters come here and say things like, "I just finished my house and it's made of concrete and I don't have any insulation because some guy on YouTube said thermal mass works better than insulation." We also get a lot of people just adding unnecessary concrete to their houses because they think that more "thermal mass" is better somehow. And concrete is one of the most environmentally destructive substances used in construction.
So when I read someone write that "I have read that building a masonry wall inside or laying tile that will be exposed to the sunshine from windows will heat the material and gradually release it at night and this could prevent those night-time energy losses" or "Have you been in a room with tile floors or a stone wall that gets direct sunlight? You can feel the heat on them stay with them for some time," I know we're on the road to magic masonry and we need to take the next exit.
"You may be saying that the benefits of thermal mass are overstated in building science but heat capacity is definitely a thing."
Heat capacity is a thing. What isn't a thing is the belief that underlies a lot of "thermal mass" evangelism that conventional construction is somehow deficient in heat capacity.
It's absolutely true that a house with low heat capacity would be unpleasant to live in, you'd get rapid swings in temperature.
Think about this: when new house is built, we engineer the heating capacity, the cooling capacity, the water capacity, the electrical capacity, the ventilation capacity, the bearing capacity of the roof and the foundation and everything in-between. You know what we don't engineer? The heat capacity. Even though, when we engineer the heating and cooling system, we implicitly assume that the house has some heat capacity, because we only engineer it to meet the heating and cooling loads 99% of the time -- we assume that for short excursions beyond the 99th percentile the heat capacity of the house will be enough to keep the occupants comfortable even if the HVAC can't quite keep up.
So why don't we engineer the heat capacity? Is it because we're ignorant or apathetic? Or is it because the house is going to have ample heat capacity anyway? It's the second. The materials that go into a four-bedroom house weigh along the order of magnitude of 100,000 pounds. Most common construction materials have a specific heat around 0.5 so a back-of-the-envelope number for the heat capacity of a typical house is 50,000 BTU/degree F.
Which is ample when you look at the order of magnitude of heating and cooling loads in a typical house and what we're asking the heat capacity to do.
You might reconsider asking an architect to help you just through the early stages of design, the phase called schematics.
The first steps they take (and that anyone should) are typically to
1) check any local code and zoning requirements,
2) have your documentation of the site, and
3) identify your main goals and detail your wishes, requirements, needs, etc. (known as the “program.”) for what spaces, materials, responses to the specific site, ( trees, natural light, slope, neighbors), lifestyle,etc.
Once in a while someone comes up with a really nice design on the first try. Not often. (Imagine if someone built their own house from scratch, first try at doing building, didn’t want to get any help from a builder with experience, just read some books…They might wish they’d gotten an assist from a pro! But you don’t have to just imagine- many stories out there.)
By preparing with the steps laid out above, and then finding an experienced architect to help you bring those ideas into even a basic layout, you would only be asking their help for about 10% of what they normally do, and avoid many of the common pitfalls. You can have the major role you want in the design and end up with a better house to live in and higher resale value-worth way more than the cost of getting an experienced eye on your design.
"Imagine if someone built their own house from scratch, first try at doing building, didn’t want to get any help from a builder with experience, just read some books…They might wish they’d gotten an assist from a pro!"
Fair point Liznewman. I think I have a little bit of leg up than the layman as a builder because building different architects plans over the years has helped me figure some things that work and don't but, of course, it's no substitute for studying architecture and working at a firm. I like the idea of collaborating with an architect and doing most of it myself to keep the cost down.
I say just download a free program like Room Sketcher and start playing around in it. You aren't completely clueless so you can start with standard bedroom size and just start making some squares. No matter how many book you read you'll have to start drawing at some point. My wife and I did our own floor plan off and on for the last two years and I think we've gotten really good at it. Finding interesting and efficient places for things like stairs and pantries. It's a lot of fun and I've even taught myself 3D modeling because I'm a visual person and 2D floorplans sometimes don't translate in my head (rooms that look huge are actually small in 3D). I'm enjoying SketchUp so much I'm debating about becoming a drafter and doing some of this stuff on the side.
Whichever way you choose, good luck!
One route that you can go would be to work with Chief Architect's Home Designer Pro software.. It's relatively inexpensive ($600), and surprisingly easy to work with for simple designs - working with it can be a learning process. There are libraries of e.g. furniture (and more available for download) that you can insert to let you see how the room dimensions will actually work with furniture in them. It has fairly sophisticated 3D rendering capabilities, you can put in lat,lon coordinates along with day of year and time of day and it can show how the sun will stream in through windows and avoid overhangs (or not) for example. It will provide a materials list There is pretty good online documentation, including numerous how-to videos. At a minimum, this can help you get an idea of what you want for a design, a rough draft if you will. They do have a 2-week trial download that you can use to get an idea of what it is before you fork out $600.
I am a scientist working in research informatics and I am amazed really by the capabilities that they can provide for $600. I believe that a significant contributor, is that it shares a lot of code with a higher end product - the Chief Architect Premier product, so they're selling into two different markets with (nearly) one code development effort.
HomeDesigner Pro uses a lot of software automation to allow you to quickly sketch a home and essentially filling in a lot of the construction details for you. It works very well in my opinion for simpler designs with stock e.g. wall assemblies, and especially for ideation. Where it begins to fall down is with more complex designs and if you want to tailor the assemblies and detailing - that's what the high end product is for.
If you later work with a designer or architect who uses their higher end product, they can actually take your model files as a starting point and then work with you on refining the design and you could potentially work on the design collaboratively - subject of course to their willingness to use this kind of process.
AGoldstein,
I would suggest Chief Architect Home Designer Suite (even cheaper than Pro, at $125 one-time purchase) to refine and articulate your ideas about *what* you want from the house -- and then hand that plan over as a starting point to someone such as a design-build team who has experience doing floor plans and building them
That at any rate is the approach I'm currently adopting to having a custom home built, which is to be a forever home. [Context: I would never have embarked on this but for being forced to evacuate my old house by health issues arising from mold]. I would not try to build directly from my own plans because I've never done any building. But there were very specific functions and layouts I wanted from the design (in addition to mold resilience and moisture-resistant assemblies) and I was unable to even formulate/express my vision for these until I started playing around with a real 3D software package. I have found Home Designer Suite easy to learn and work with and it has helped immensely in coming up with a plan that's in the ballpark of what I want.
Hope that made sense.
If I were in your shoes, I'd read all the books and still buy and hire out the plans. This would allow more critical review and educated changes to what you buy or hire out. It may seem like a large expense to buy plans, but a mistake or two in the design is way more expensive. Also the plan is the backbone of how the house functions, looks and feels. IMO, I'd much rather save money on finishes than a plan.
I'd would also keep your objectives at the forefront as it's too easy to get caught up into expensive details in the moment that sound great or someone tells you that it's a must have. Since resale is important, and you plan to travel in the future, I would compromise on the rural location and build something in a more mainstream location. Rural properties are not the most liquid assets and often require a very specific buyer. There was a rush of people during covid buying up more rural homes to get more space and privacy thinking working from home or anywhere in the world would be forever.. Now that things are normalizing, many regret their purchases and will take sizable losses to move back to something they had before.
Good luck. Building your own home can be an overwhelming and frustrating experience, but also rewarding.