Current building culture and energy-saving ordinance-compliant new development areas

Apart from that, I think city planners should present a proper development plan – and it must then be adhered to. And if only flat roofs and no gable roofs are allowed, well, tough luck, no one is forced to build exactly where the requirements don't suit them.

If it is too restrictive, then it is not a proper development plan. And it crosses the line between tough luck and disproportion, among other things. If these are municipal plots, one might still see it that way. But if they are privately owned, the owner becomes the victim when the municipality effectively reduces the value of the plots with disproportionate restrictions. Lawsuits against the plan and other consequences (keyword compensation) follow.

Worse, I find permitted building sins like the pink-colored house in Tuscan style with a heat pump between "ancient" columns next to the front door (or alternatively the outdoor unit of the air conditioner)

Not or, but and

Specific case from our construction area: The municipality stipulates red roof tiles for shed roofs in the development plan, max pitch 16 degrees. The builder contacts the municipality, asks for an exemption from the regulation because he wants to cover a 7-degree low-pitched roof with anthracite-colored tiles. The municipality says no, reasoning: we don't like it, anyone could come asking. The builder thinks to himself: screw you, I'll use anthracite... hardly any of the roof surface is visible, so the village character could never be affected. Moreover, two streets away there are two buildings ....
In summary: The builder did exactly what you would expect, namely asked early for an exemption. It was arbitrarily denied, and a legal assessment by the approval authority concluded that there is no legal basis for this requirement from the perspective.....]

A neighbor I wouldn't want to live next to.

Why did he insist on his anthracite-colored roof if it is not approved by the development plan, but even more importantly: not even visible? That's exactly the problem we have here in Germany with some troublemakers who insist on something that is not comprehensible. It doesn't matter, now you come up with the arbitrariness of the municipality, I question it from the opposite perspective: why not accept the various options you have, instead of pushing through what is not wanted.

I actually sound here as if I were a conformist and compromiser, but I am the opposite. However, I like to challenge myself by solving puzzles (or designing floor plans ) so I don't necessarily try to follow a straight and paved path. But I see it as a challenge to design a house that the builder likes well within an existing development plan [emoji4]

Otherwise see #118

This current fixation on, for example, two stories is partly stubbornness,...

Why are people who have completely rational and/or emotional reasons and therefore cannot relate to one- or one-and-a-half-story construction immediately called stubborn? Why are they attributed with an irrational, unjustified fixation on this type of construction, although they know very well why two full stories are very important to them?

many fixate on a dark or red roof and are never willing to agree with others on a different roof shape and color, even though they themselves will never see their roof (except on maps). And suddenly they end up in a building forum and complain about development plans
[...]
But _not_ being willing to compromise,

Who exactly is currently complaining about development plans and/or is not willing to compromise?

Why did he insist on his anthracite-colored roof when it is not approved according to the development plan, but even more importantly: not even visible?

Presumably because, for him, a "not approved" does not represent legal bindingness and therefore does not constitute a regulation he is obliged to follow? I don’t know, you would have to ask him...

But where do you draw the line regarding insistence? In my opinion, it is a personal judgment whether one can or wants to live with the arbitrariness or not. I do not presume to judge his approach as right or wrong; I leave that to others here in the forum.

Factually, it is the case that he was wrongly denied the opportunity to exercise his building freedom anchored in the BASIC LAW. People evaluate the restriction of their (fundamental) rights quite differently, as can also be seen in other topics such as surveillance, informational self-determination, etc. He just wants to build his house with his money within the legally valid provisions of the development plan (which he is doing) and according to his taste. This is arbitrarily and without legal basis denied to him. Therefore, I can understand his behavior and also consider it legitimate, even if I handle it differently and cover my roof with red tiles because the fuss is not worth it to me and I do not see the roof anyway. But that is MY subjective assessment, which does not necessarily have to coincide with his and does not lead me to label him a troublemaker because of it.

Invoking one’s rights and demanding them is a fundamental element of our constitutional state, the foundation of which is the Basic Law. I find it difficult to deny other people this right or to look down on them just because one would handle it differently.

To clarify: suppose you are caught speeding at 80 km/h but were driving the allowed 50 km/h. In the evidence photo, you and a motorcyclist are visible. What do you do? Presumably, you would file an objection, right? One might also say that this is being a troublemaker. Damn it, tough luck, you didn’t have to drive along that road; there are other streets, and the fictitious fine of 100€ plus surcharges? The whole objection fuss is not worth it and totally exaggerated.

I could understand your objection; someone earning a six- or seven-figure annual salary would just wonder about it and say: do you always have to fight against it; can’t you just pay the peanuts and leave it alone? Wow, I wouldn’t want to live next to someone like that...

It’s always a question of perspective and whether you are affected or not...

The license will cost you 80 instead of 50.
Happy Easter [emoji214]

Just briefly because of little time:

You omitted the reason for the fence - the warming. That weighs much more than the appearance. Anyway.

About the roof tiles: I don't like the painted ones at all. But you write that they will DEFINITELY glare at you SOMETIME. So it hasn't happened yet and is just a guess?!
Phew, I find it difficult to judge based on a guess like that. If it SHOULD glare at you sometime, you have the legal option. It should be a piece of cake to win if the facts are that clear and intent is provable [emoji6]

No, it is already glaring now when the sun hits them. Even when you stand on the street. But since I haven't yet spent a longer uninterrupted time in the relevant rooms of our shell construction, I probably wrote.
Sue? I hardly believe that will be successful if they have already made payment. But we will see how it actually turns out.