Floor plan, 3D images city villa 160m². Please provide feedback :)

a few comments from me: - staircase right by the front door ... you often see that, but I personally think it's very unfavorable. You drag all the dirt from the hallway upstairs. - differently sized children's rooms I also don't like, the one with 13 is even relatively small - the bathroom upstairs would be too big for me, or rather you have too much unused space .. it's almost 2.5m from the washbasin to the bathtub .. you can't place anything there either.

Hello everyone and Happy Pentecost!
Thank you very much for all the really helpful feedback. So I wasn’t completely wrong with the assumption that the floor plan isn’t ideal. I, for my part, am not a big fan of the square shape. However, we were told that you either have significantly more length than width (or vice versa) and if not, then it’s better to take a square because of the ridge.
what exactly do you mean by "With Nordostkind, bedroom and living room the floor plan could painlessly give some depth and rather allow more width, for example"? Unfortunately, I don’t have an exact plan of our plot yet. But you can imagine the plot as a square.
I also think that the kitchen can be recessed better to create more space for the dining area. We will do that and the room downstairs will probably be "sacrificed". We will also take another look at the kids’ room and bathroom upstairs and possibly make the bathroom a bit smaller to create space for a small storage room. Thanks again for the tips, if anyone has more, please feel free.

what exactly do you mean by "With northeast child, bedroom and living room, the floor plan could painlessly give depth and rather indulge in more width, for example"?

Oh nonsense, I blonde meant the other right one. Northeast is the bedroom, I meant child 1 in northwest. These rooms have about four and a half meters depth, due to the depth of the dressing room plus a door width, otherwise they wouldn't need it. If you took away in depth what child 1 has more than child 2, you could afford more house width with the same house floor area.

However, we were told that you either have significantly more length than width (or vice versa) and if not, then better to take a square shape because of the ridge.

That’s not entirely wrong, but probably a greatly simplified explanation aimed at lay understanding. Even a floor-area-equal house of nine point eighty by ten point seventy meters could be built without a ridge, despite the ninety-centimeter edge length difference: for that, it would be enough to have 30 degrees roof pitch in depth and 28 degrees in width — just as a calculation example — that difference would be hardly noticeable to the naked eye.

But you can imagine the plot as a square.

Even if you might visually misjudge that considerably, that would still clearly argue for well more than ten and a quarter meters possible house width. So I advise neither deliberately aiming for a square nor deliberately for a non-square, but playing with optimized room dimensions and seeing what external dimensions and aspect ratios result. Then such tinkering is unnecessary, which I also clearly advise against:

I also think that the kitchen can be recessed to create more space for the dining area. We will do that and the room below will probably be "sacrificed."

A room that one could mercilessly "sacrifice" would be a clear indication that the wrong basic floor plan was chosen.

The site plan is missing!

I guess I wasn’t that wrong with the suspicion that the floor plan isn’t ideal. For my part, I’m not a big fan of the square shape.

You’re right, and don’t let anyone sell you a square if you don’t particularly want it anyway. It will be your house.
I wrote numbers on the floor plans and add my two cents to the points:
[ATTACH alt="2BED09B7-F9A8-4C5F-92EF-BE8D87E119D5.jpeg" type="full"]35191[/ATTACH]
1. Having the staircase run around the cloakroom is great.
2. Forgoing the seemingly now-obligatory shower in the guest toilet is also good.
3. Here the design not only wastes space but also creates expensive discomfort through a central open area.
4. These pieces of furniture look very small. Back to the garden? Many do that because of the TV. I always find that astonishing. Better make a home theater in the room labeled “room.”
5. The dining table looks like it’s placed between the windows because the windows are the way they are. It becomes clear that the house apparently wasn’t designed from the inside out. None of the dining places is attractive; the passage to the kitchen island is too narrow.
6. The planner planted a kitchen island because people currently like that. But it doesn’t really fit, and with the cooktop on the edge – well.

Conclusion: The kitchen-dining-living area is large but potentially uncomfortable and inefficient.

[ATTACH alt="1DA72815-8369-4951-B5DE-8C1092D8E9DD.jpeg" type="full"]35192[/ATTACH]
7. When building yourself, you can make the children’s rooms similarly sized. These drastic size differences risk being unworkable. I strongly advise against it, especially since the smaller room will be really tight for teenagers.
8. Slim cabinets for slim people?
9. The bathroom is drawn without love. It looks too big compared to the other rooms, especially the dressing room and children’s rooms, which look “small.”
10. The generous space at the foot of the bed in the bedroom would suffice to compensate for the inequality of the children’s rooms.
11. The windows – inside, you have to make do with what looks nice outside.

Conclusion: The rooms have been thoughtlessly and carelessly tossed by the planner onto the upper floor.

I would look for a new architect or planner. If a professional drew this, they have no interest in the buyer’s life in the house. Fancy exterior views and the appropriate car painted in for identification – and then foisting a square floor plan on someone who actually doesn’t want that… Next, please.

You are right and don’t let anyone talk you into a square meter if you don’t really want it anyway. It will be your house. I wrote numbers on the floor plans and add my two cents to the points: 1. Having the stairs run around the wardrobe is great. 2. Forgoing the seemingly now obligatory shower in the guest toilet is also good. 3. Here, the design not only wastes space but also expensively creates discomfort through a central open area. 4. These pieces of furniture look very small. Facing the garden? Many do that because of the TV. I always find that surprising. Better make a home theater in the room “Zimmer.” 5. The dining table looks like it’s placed between the windows because the windows are just the way they are. It shows that the house apparently wasn’t designed from the inside out. None of the dining seats has an attractive effect, the passage to the kitchen island is too narrow. 6. The planner planted a kitchen island in because people currently like it. But it doesn’t really fit here and with the cooktop at the edge – well. Conclusion: The cook-dining-living area is large but potentially uncomfortable and inefficient. 7. When you build yourself, you can also make the children’s rooms similarly sized. These drastic size differences carry the risk of being unacceptable. I strongly advise against it, especially since the smaller room will be really tight for teenagers. 8. Slim cabinets for slim people? 9. The bathroom is drawn without love. It looks too big in relation to the other rooms, especially the walk-in closet and the “small” children’s room. 10. The generous space at the foot end of the bed in the bedroom would be enough to compensate for the inequality of the children’s rooms. 11. The windows – inside you have to make do with what looks fancy from the outside. Conclusion: The rooms are carelessly and thoughtlessly thrown by the planner into the upper floor. I would look for a new architect or planner. If a professional drew this, they have no interest in the buyer’s life in the house. Fancy exterior views and the matching car painted in for identification – and then pushing someone a square floor plan who actually doesn’t want that... Next, please.

Nice and good critique, but the architect can’t always be changed so easily. I had two bad ones right away, then got tired of it, spent a lot of time myself, and my colleague gave the final polish (used to be an architect, old schooling, classic?), the floor plan now is exactly ours. Although I have to say, if the plan is stupid and in the end it fits perfectly and the architect previously did little, then it somehow still has something positive.