Decision support for different floor plans

If it has to be one of the 3 floor plans, then the -2 mirrored. I don't like any of them.

I don't really find 2/M mirrored any better either. In the layout of the attic, it is probably closest to the customer's wish and developed from that (but even here 1/L remains my relative favorite), and the ground floor of 2/M has, in my view, the usual draftsman's quick-shot quality. My absolute favorite remains that the TE would go to an independent architect.

If it has to be one of the 3 floor plans, then the -2 mirrored.
I don’t like any of them.
There is no storage space. Laundry, sports equipment, school bags, etc. Groceries, drinks, the kids are growing up. When I see what groceries my friend goes through with 4 kids, some of them teenagers.
I wouldn’t give up a bathtub. Not because of mom, but the kids, eventually the creaky bones or resale.

Think carefully about what needs to go into the house. The farmer’s cupboard, the shoe collection, the sewing table, the dream living landscape, etc. What makes you different from others and what is important to you.

I agree with you that "more" would always be better. But unfortunately, the development plan and the budget don’t allow more than 109 sqm floor space or 155 sqm living space. So, as a family with 3 children, you will simply have to make some compromises. We currently live in a terraced house with 110 sqm without a basement/attic and thus almost no storage space. So we know what we are talking about.
The question is whether it is at all possible to get a better floor plan within the given conditions.

I don’t really find 2/M mirrored any better either. In the layout of the attic, it is probably closest to the customer’s wish and developed from that (but even here 1/L remains my relative favorite), and in my opinion the ground floor of 2/M has the usual Zeichenknecht quick-draw quality. My absolute favorite remains that the OP goes to an independent architect.

The question is whether the architect can produce something better here at all considering the conditions (see above). The general contractors don’t have their “pattern floor plans” for nothing and I am somewhat concerned about investing a lot of money in an architect only to end up with a similar floor plan in the end.

Would a basement be financially feasible for you? The project is going to cost around a million in total, if I have it right in my mind.

Would a basement be financially feasible for you? The project is overall heading towards a million, if I remember correctly

Unfortunately not, a basement (+100k€?, no hillside property) would financially exceed our budget. We are happy if we can implement the house as planned.

… I would also swap the kitchen and the living room. The way it looks, the distance to the TV is already very generous. And as it is marked, the sofa in front of the terrace door is simply nonsense and a waste of space that the kitchen could use much better.

But unfortunately, the development plan and also the budget do not allow more than 109 sqm of floor area or 155 sqm of living space. [...] The question is whether the architect can really conjure up anything better here considering the framework conditions (see above). The general contractors don’t have their "standard floor plans" for nothing, and I am somewhat concerned about investing a lot of money in an architect and ending up with a similar floor plan in the end.

The attitude that an architect is only worth his fee to the extent that his floor plan is more original/smart than what one could achieve without him is as misguided as it is widespread. It is based on the misinterpretation of the architect as (at least essentially) a floor plan designer. In reality, he "earns" his money (through sweat) mainly in the second half (service phases 5 to 8). The floor plan accounts for only about one fourteenth of his fee.

The "standard floor plan" of the 610 already has 112 sqm without the "bay window" and is designed for a "normal family" with two children. Here you have apparently already tailored it a bit more narrowly in order to still meet the 109 sqm limit with the "bay window," and then also added another room. I am somewhat amazed that this still works relatively unscathed. Nevertheless, it is only an impressively realistic imitation of the actual standard floor plan, because they have only proven themselves under the condition of maintaining the standard dimensions (and without complicating the layout). In addition, a standard design loses a significant part of its advantages if it is copied by another contractor. From this perspective, I am even more surprised at how little worse variation 3/R turned out compared to template 1/L – apart from the less favorable bathroom location. And design 2/M also deserves recognition from this point of view, since it only disappoints on the ground floor. However, on a back courtyard building plot, a planner quickly reaches his limits in what can be achieved by mere Rubik’s Cube turning. Here the structured approach of an architect has a higher chance of success.

If you want to build on a catalog design, the strategy of cutting and narrowing an approximately suitable starting model is not the best, and here it has still turned out surprisingly well. The more favorable strategy aiming at a 109/155 sqm house for a family with three children would be to select a basic design (since all of them are designed for two-child families) with about 90 to 95 sqm of floor area and extend it along the ridge axis by the third child’s room (see the section "Additional space by enlarging the floor area" in my blog post "Changing the size of a floor plan").