180 sqm non-replacement house, best adaptation to the plot?

At first I really thought cool design, but I risked a second look...
- Walkable airspace, what a thing... by the way, in variant 1 it is above the storage, anyone who likes to watch the supplies lying down will feel right at home there.
- If I didn't miscalculate, you have 3.10m for the table including chairs and passage. Table 1m, chair 60-80cm
- Parking space behind the house, ONE, a second car does not really fit there despite a lot of space. The trash bin gets a roof and you have to walk around in the rain once to get to the entrance. In V2 35-40m with every shopping bag to the kitchen or through the window?
- A gigantic balcony, which is primarily to be accessed through the bathroom or a room, then the little balcony from the other room through the hallway?
- Very important to add 2 all-glass corners, must not be missing in a modern design :P
- Open multifunctional office and passage area on the upper floor but no possibility to go to the toilet, for that in the dressing room max. 2m of wardrobe. Depending on the knee wall, it also gets dangerous for the head in the bed
- Shower in the WC on the ground floor where who is supposed to shower after walking past the entrance door in underwear?
- Parking space for washing machine and dryer or drying rack?

These are the things I noticed, no offense, I wanted to find it cool but good design must in my opinion still work. For the sake of "beauty" alone I wouldn't build a house, but everyone can decide for themselves which compromises they want to make.

What just occurred to me while reading the initial post, and I do not mean to offend you, but does it make sense for you to consider living "in old age" and to incorporate the resulting factors into the construction? For a building with "2x30," that would be an aspect I would focus on more and orient walking distances, avoidance of corners, etc. accordingly.

Yes, those are exactly the concerns I have as well: 1. The paths: from the parking space to the kitchen entrance – very long. From the entrance to the kitchen: long in both variants, through the whole house. In V1 kitchen on the left, you have to go around the utility room block from the entrance. 2. The requirement was: living and dining room partially connected/overlapping. This is implemented here, but at the cost that there is no dining room that deserves this name, just a corridor-like something that doesn't work, a passage area. Dining room is a deal breaker for me.

If I did not miscalculate, you have 3.10m for the table including chairs and passage. Table 1m, chair 60-80cm

So why is the staircase there? Why not further forward on the right or at least on the right wall? 3. The huge balconies both narrow to a sharp point, there they are unusable, maybe for flowers/plants. But is that buildable, sealable? Additional risk without additional benefit...? Or would you not have these concerns? How does it look from outside? Don’t these balcony additions spoil the impression of the barn-like middle part? 4. The first floor would probably have to turn the study into the dressing room. The bathroom is quite small for this house, no sauna possibility. No bathroom on the second floor, but shower on the ground floor?? 5.

Parking space behind the house, ONE, a second car really doesn't fit there despite a lot of space

very apt, it might even exceed the floor area ratio II. A lot of space is lost on the right side. 6. No window on the SW side in V2 park really doesn't work. All in all, the architect has at least not chosen the location of the stairs well, right? these could indeed be legitimate concerns:

Apparently he confuses "creative" with "desperately original". I would already be put off and fear that construction supervision is not his strength

From the conversations it became clear that she likes to leave the “building” to a general contractor ... and feels less responsible for 5-9.

P.S.: I don’t see a church here – I see a townhouse.

I still like the overall impression of the house, indeed a townhouse. Whether it should not be somewhat more “villa-like” for the surroundings of the property (red clinker, white-trimmed old villas), perhaps one still has to decide.

I somehow miss the north arrow. Why is the parking space so far in the back? Does the regulation only allow planning one parking space?

Living "in old age"

Not taken too personally at all, that is indeed too brief in the draft here. There was once another draft from the architect, which she discarded – there was, according to our wishes, a guest/work/elderly bedroom on the ground floor... what remained of that was the shower...

I'm somehow missing the north arrow. Why is the parking space so far back? Is there a rule that only allows planning one parking space?

Sorry, attached again with north arrow.
Why the parking space so far back? Without any real reason, and not sensible, except that there is more width available there than directly next to the house. The only planning specification is no parking space IN FRONT of the house within the 7.5m area.