Floor plan 170 sqm, gable roof, 1.5 floors

Why are almost everywhere only 88cm wide doors drawn? The deep window apparently with fixed glazing in the dining room is nice but having a dining bench so close to it might not look so good. I would then probably raise the parapet to the height of the backrest, even though I actually prefer the low-lying glass that way. I wouldn’t plan the bed directly opposite the door in the children's room, rather in a quiet corner of the room. I actually find a workspace in the bedroom inappropriate, because you go to bed with the work in view or see it first thing after waking up. I want to be able to exclude work from my daily routine. The bathroom is large with 11sqm, but currently it is neither nicely nor sensibly planned. Having the door behind you at the sink is also unpleasant.

The garage of the demolition house is currently in the west corner; we would like to place it in the northeast next to the existing neighboring garage.

Cars are not architecture connoisseurs; they don’t care about their child’s room wallpaper at all. Usually spending over 30k just so that an equally good little bed for the car stands in a different corner? - Millionaires who want to remain millionaires avoid that. You can afford more than just the architect’s fee from that.

I am only now getting around to reading your entire post thoroughly and calmly... but here is my more detailed response than this morning.

I completely agree with you about the bathroom, but it could relatively easily be extended to the left around the cloakroom area. Where do you see the problem with the kitchen?

That it is drivable but not suitable for turning around.

Why are almost everywhere only 88cm wide doors drawn?

And yes, I also forgot to mention the doors.

The guest WC does not become barrier-free if you extend it. It is simply too narrow. Even for a healthy person, furnishing it is already right on the edge.
Now all it takes is for someone to simply reproduce that, and later the sanitation guy will refuse to clear the toilet clog because he can’t get between the washbasin and the toilet when the shower partition is installed as drawn.
Uncle Widearm won’t fit in there either when he visits.

But starting at the beginning:
You make a mistake by fixating too much on the topic of accessibility (or the lack thereof).
Yes, you did say later that you don’t need it now and that it is only meant for the worst case, but look how this triggers you (from top to bottom of the opening post)

basically important to be able to live barrier-free on the ground floor in case of emergency.

definitely a barrier-free

barrier-free bedroom

ground floor barrier-reduced

possibility to live barrier-free on the ground floor

Definitely, basically important… and then actually not. At least it is not so important that you would have googled it.

Currently, luckily, we are doing very well and do not require accessibility at the moment.

Very good.

I would rather focus on other scenarios, e.g., if a child is sick, how do you help them when they feel unwell in the guest toilet? Or hold the child over their glasses?!
Or if the partner is sick, do you want to disturb their rest by working in the bedroom? I wouldn’t even tolerate that healthy, not even myself.
Personally, I actually consider a nice room on the ground floor very useful; a shower on the ground floor can also come in handy, but I hardly know any plan where sufficient space is given to the shower or the entire room. Instead, three pieces of furniture are squeezed into 4 sqm. Here it is even almost 6 sqm, but very poorly implemented.
Also, the shower upstairs: nicely planned as a walk-in in length, but when stepping out you stand in front of the window. Washbasin in the dark and door right behind your back.
There are some nice ideas, but overall poorly executed.
The wardrobe is hardly usable; it is tiny and has no space in front. If children are around, shoes will be left there, and the non-barrier-free guest WC will no longer be easily accessible anyway. Basically, it is a bottleneck there that will not work with more people coming home.
I consider the kitchen size borderline for 5 people.
Living room is generous, but a family sofa won’t fit well and comfortably.
Windows: there seem to be too many confused or arbitrary dimensions and spaces. Sometimes two-leaf, sometimes 150, sometimes 180, what do the house facades look like? One-meter-high windows are borderline too small.
If you really want to continue focusing on the aspect of accessibility, I would make sure that a lift can be retrofitted to the stairs and that a rollator is not in the way at both the bottom and top of the stairs.

I have the impression that "barrierefrei" and "behindertengerecht" are sometimes confused. The option to have a fully functional living unit without stairs seems to be the main focus of this design. Consistent with your wishes would be a different house shape - e.g., an L, in which communal and retreat rooms are separated into 2 sections. Then bedrooms and a larger bathroom can also fit on the ground floor. Above one part, the attic for the children. Whether you are allowed to build like this? No idea.

P.s. I see the garage where it is now. If planned, one would have to maneuver then. I would rotate the house based on the floor area (without evaluating the floor plan).

Hello everyone,

thank you very much for your honest answers regarding our floor plan. With the input, we will adjust and revise our design in the next few days.

Cars are not architectural gourmets; they don't care at all about their children's room wallpaper. Usually spending over 30k on that so that there's a bed for the car just as good as before but in a different corner? - Millionaires who want to stay millionaires stay away from that. You can afford more than just the architect's fee with that.

P.s. I see the garage where it is now. If planned elsewhere, you would have to maneuver.

Unfortunately, the garage is as run-down as the demolition house itself, so it probably isn’t worth investing money in it again. We will reconsider the positioning. If it stands in the west corner as it currently does, you always have a very long, straight driveway, meaning you always have to back out the entire way onto the street. In my opinion, that’s not better than needing a pull to maneuver with a garage in the northeast courtyard.

I would rotate the house based on the footprint (without judging the floor plan).

Rotating the house has crossed our minds, too; the question is whether I want the long side facing the beautiful and unobstructed garden or instead in the afternoon sun in the southwest...

The issue that currently concerns us most urgently is how to proceed with the basement during and after demolition. Currently, the ground floor of the demolition house is a raised ground floor with 7 steps up; we would like to build as close to ground level as possible so that we can connect a terrace to the house in the garden (whether we build with or without a basement). With a 40 cm height difference from the driveway to the garden, that should work if the terrain is filled somewhat. With the 40 cm height difference, we are also rather at the lower end of 's basement rule, so this tends to favor a building without a basement. There is also space for basement substitute rooms on the plot. Now comes the problem of the "insufficiently deep" excavation pit at the demolition stage; we estimate that the pit is about 1.70 m deep on the driveway side and about 1.30 m on the garden side after demolition. For a slab-on-grade construction, we would first have to fill up about a meter; for a building with a basement, dig about a meter deeper. For filling, we could probably recycle the demolition material directly. Do you or anyone in the forum have experience with what was economically more sensible in similar cases?

Thank you very much in advance for your opinions Hannes