Floor plan - 135 sqm, 1.5 storeys, gable roof

which "two" calculation arguments do you mean?

I meant that the cost equivalence of one square meter across the spectrum of house types he cited - i.e. bungalow, witch's cottage, and "city villa" all treated the same way - only applies if he uses the scale of the square meter in a practical manner - i.e. according to DIN 283 or the Wohnflächenverordnung; hence the claim of cost equivalence is at the same time inconsistent to absurd when the square meter is interpreted in terms of carpet area / DIN 277.

I simply don’t know that. There is nowhere a properly specified plot ratio.

Where there is none, the maximum federal legal limit applies (if I recall correctly, that would be practically a plot ratio/floor area ratio of 0.8 for a bungalow - so usually sufficient).

although 635 sqm plot is not exactly the classic plot size for a bungalow.

Without fixed plot ratio/floor area ratio maxima, I would also see no reason for rejection; I consider a 135 sqm bungalow on a 635 sqm plot absolutely reasonable. At my home, those would be good for a 254 sqm bungalow.

I meant that the cost equivalence he cited for one square meter across the spectrum of house types – i.e., bungalow, witch's cottage, and "city villa" all lumped together – only applies if he uses the square meter measurement in a practical manner, that is, according to DIN 283 or the Wohnflächenverordnung; therefore, the claim of cost equivalence is at the same time inconsistent to absurd when the square meter interpretation is made in the sense of the carpet area / DIN 277.

Well, in summary, one can say that the calculation mainly benefits the seller, less so the buyer. Legally, in my opinion, he can do it that way. I don't think I have any leverage there.

Correct: that is disadvantageous for you, but not immoral, therefore permissible. That is why the tip from Zaba12, to basically turn the tables in the form of the bungalow and get more living square meters for you, so that it is the same number of square meters for him

Correct: that is disadvantageous for you, but not immoral, therefore permissible. That’s why Zaba12’s tip is to practically turn the tables with the bungalow and get more living square meters for yourself, while for him it’s the same number of square meters

Exactly. A bungalow is more expensive... proportionally more expensive than a city villa. So if a bungalow is an option due to a lack of floor area ratio, then just turn the tables: this way you are not disadvantaged by the net floor area, but enjoy the advantage of a bungalow area of a whopping 135 net! The resulting gable roof upper floor you leave unfinished. This will eventually become a huge hobby room if more space is needed because of a child. You only need a shaft for the pipes that leads upwards. At least, that’s a very good move that could lead to checkmate. I just say: cross-subsidization.

Yes, a proper attic ladder like the one at only costs just under four square meters

That would be really great if the bungalow works out. I hope the "local customary development" doesn't get in my way or that a floor area ratio doesn't suddenly appear... but I'm on it. And if something like this is stated in the statute introduction: "The appearance of the village is fundamentally determined by: the typical Brandenburg house types: small and larger predominantly single-story residential houses, partly with kneewalls and cross gables..." then that should basically correspond to the village's appearance, right?