There is not yet a neighbor for the other half of the house. Therefore, we are still completely free in terms of planning.
Wow, and you not only have the money to play developer - but you also don’t want to involve the future neighbors in the planning? – wouldn’t it be wise to already concretely select the candidates?
The architect has compared the different floor plans in the staggered floor as an illustration.
If you want to have control over this as the developer, I would build precisely this deviation from the mirror image.
The 80 cm height difference was a wish from us in order to loosen up the whole thing a bit with the offset of the buildings. However, this is not yet fixed.
I assumed that this height difference was the contribution of the topography of the plot to loosening up the ensemble, so the measure of the difference would not be arbitrary on your part. The joint between the houses will be more complex in the detailed connections than it can “pay off” visually when the building masses are offset in height and depth. If the plot suggests a height offset, I would take that and leave out the depth offset. Loosening up can be done more cleverly and cheaply in another way.
What exactly do you mean by "plopped out of the time machine"?
The floor plan set seems to me like it is from 1980 – overall impression and in more details than I could count or name spontaneously. Was the architect young back then?
By the way, the two of us get by with a 3m closet for clothes (my wife switches summer and winter, shoes are mostly in the hallway closet)
Oh, I’m already so old that I still remember seasons :-)
What are "botch pockets"?
These are mortar-filled joints that result from planning laissez-faire in the form of octameter ignorance: 96.5 instead of 100 cm (unnecessary sawing), 120 instead of 125 cm (cutting off 5 cm or filling 7.5 cm with mortar), 483.5 or 820.5 cm and so on.
I guess you didn’t reach anyone at the building authority today regarding my objection about the access situation?