Dissatisfied with the architect's plan

We have about 2.10m height difference from the street to the back edge of the house. So quite a bit already. The garden behind rises slightly further, but we don’t insist on a level garden either. The neighbors have the slope descending from the side of the house or from the street to the garden. We can’t really orient ourselves there. Those that are next to the slope usually solved it with walls to retain it, the others with raised terraces. It is not possible to see from the outside that much has been done structurally in the house.

In the outdoor area, I even find the hillside location beautiful. I like the stepped terrace, I like a surrounding wall. I think all of this makes the garden very cozy, a bit tucked in.

I'm not quite sure why the architect always dismisses it rather flatly. He once argued that the outdoor areas would then become insanely expensive, but we accept that. Or is the height difference simply too great for it?

I actually find the slope location in the outdoor area quite nice. I like the terraced patio, I like a surrounding wall. I think all of this makes the garden very cozy, somewhat nestled in.

I'm not quite sure why the architect always pretty much dismissed it. He once argued that the outdoor areas would become insanely expensive then, but we are willing to accept that. Or is the height difference simply too big for it?

I don’t see the problem here now. The terrain profile is drawn in cross-section and the idea in the design is to terrace the terrain. To what extent you set steps here and how high they are can still be worked on. I have seen several plots where a staircase leads up to a plateau at the back of the garden, which can be nicely landscaped.

In that respect, the architect has taken your needs into account.

I also think you like the exterior views. At least they should please anyone who likes city villas.

Regarding the floor plan: I like split level, but Alex’s arguments are very understandable. You didn’t want it anyway. I find the idea of the integrated platform staircase very nice and can also imagine the light coming in as well as the openness of the "stairwell" very generously and airy.
I also don’t find the recesses and projections too extreme or disturbing, because they won’t be noticeable at all when living there. On the contrary: you will have some advantages because of them. Protected sleeping areas, a built-in pre-wall in the guest bathroom, a niche in the living room that you can nicely furnish either as a TV wall or as a sofa area so that it doesn’t feel bulky.
This gives you the opportunity to install something from wall to wall. In the children's rooms, for example, the niches are ideal for a loft bed or later for a built-in wardrobe.
I have deliberately planned these recesses on our upper floor so that you can attach a board just above 2 meters from wall to wall for baskets or boxes or a row of books as a shelf. You can nicely accentuate recessed walls with color or stones. That looks better than a wall with a sharp corner attached.
In the bathroom, the switch panel can be placed at the front by the door without damaging a tiled wall.

Only the kitchen/hall area needs revising: I have an idea and will sketch it this evening.
I also don’t find the garden facade all that exciting, it looks too uniform for my taste, but to each their own...

Therefore, I don’t understand at all the statement that the architect planned poorly.

Best regards in brief

The entrance.
... according to my suggestion would be roughly at the current location and similarly in height, between the basement/garage floor and street level. The garage would be about 40 cm lower (-1.65 instead of -1.25), the basement floor at -1.25, corresponding to the ground floor level (street side) at +1.60. You don't have to do a split level with equally long half flights of stairs. +1.06 would be a favorable level for a terrace close to the terrain slope and the garden-side ground floor level, and would result from a division into 13+3 instead of 8+8 risers (each approx. 17.81 cm at 2.85 m story height). I will probably have to work out the details again, otherwise the house might end up too high – I'll take a look at the development plan.

I'm not quite sure why the architect always pretty much dismissed that. He once argued that the outdoor facilities would then become insanely expensive, but we accept that. Or is the height difference simply too great for that?

I don’t see it as dismissed in this VE5, rather very far implemented; and yes, in my view with not insignificant costs for terrain modeling. Show me VE1 compared to that.

Split Level.
... had its heyday roughly from 1978 to 1983 as the philosopher’s stone among intellectual architects, and it certainly is not without reason that it is not widely in fashion today. A matter of taste (and reasons of practicality against interior stairs within floors) is one thing – on the other hand, in my view there are degrees of hillside intensity at which you can hardly afford to ignore the topography. The property virtually builds along, and in this sense you can only build "against the property" to a limited extent.

In the meantime, I have taken a closer look at the development plan (not directly at the municipality, where you can only order it for forty euros; therefore, I made do with your plan photos).

In terms of height, the ground floor level there should already be at most "-0.66" and probably requires an exception for the planned location; my proposal regarding the garden-adjusted height does not seem compatible with this. The eaves height specification of 4.50 m (= "+2.84") would probably not play along either.

A storage space requirement of 5.50 m in front of the garage prevents my proposal to rotate the garage towards the street—unless it were shifted to the left side of the plan and accessed from the right side street instead of the bottom side of the plan. However, this would place it at a higher level, which would thwart my plan to have a better view over it.

An entrance from the right side of the plan, which appeals to me due to more suitable heights, would mean a long way from the garage to the house—unless the back door of the garage were regularly used for that, or the enclosure of the cars were even waived, and a carport used instead.

The roof pitch of the house is required to be at least 30°. The limitation of the offset in the shed roof would still allow for a split level, but overall the heights speak rather against this (or, respectively, would then force a one-and-a-half-story design).

Well then. You like this stepped terrace, so there is no need to bend over backwards to make it obsolete. I would have liked to see the elevations changed significantly, because in my opinion, that would have improved almost every change. Stylistically, I am of the opinion that the house is not suitable for folk music allergy sufferers on the outside, but the photos of the neighboring houses on the municipality website clearly show that it fits in. Nevertheless, I find it worth changing how much the window formats and positions between the ground floor and upper floor are the same. Normally, I am the first and loudest admirer when planners do not create too much of a mixed window salad. In this case, however, I find it carried out with excessive strictness, especially because the matches top/bottom create a two-family house appeal.

I am actually only really "unhappy" with the skylight of the guest WC.

In summary: the planned height levels are, if you like the terrace as it is, alright (or only costly to make "nicer"). I would expect a breakthrough for the floor plan from relocating the entrance to the right side of the plan (along with the possibility to bring the house closer to this street / make it "wider" and possibly even enable a non-strictly straight but still longitudinal (also ridge-parallel) staircase). But even if you stick with this basic form (which I see neutrally) and also keep the valley-side entrance (which I find unfavorable), the floor plan will work in any case without this box frame of load-bearing walls lying crosswise in the middle around the hallway. This can certainly be done more nicely. As I said, compare it once to VE1. If I understand correctly, this VE5 is the one with the most incorporations of your ideas (except for this hallway box), but from the architect's point of view (which I share) it is the one with the greatest effort in terrain modeling.

Here first VE1 for comparison, still with a completely different location of the garage. We didn't like that at all, as the terrace feels too cramped for us.