I don't really see any improvement compared to the original draft.
I find both ground floors badly improved. Cloakroom and WC are improved, I think – that area was too elongated and only wasted space. Kitchen and pantry: misplanned. Dining room and living room: space apparently only came about. However, I can contribute something positive about the utility room in the upper floor. I find it perfectly sufficient for laundry. There is enough space for sorting and washing. For ironing, for the reasons I already mentioned, it is not suitable. What you do with the plan – hmm...I received new proposals today. First, the original draft slightly shrunk. The issue with the statics remains. Below are three visualizations of how the statics could be solved in the draft. The columns could also be done in a round shape. So far, I can only say with certainty that the partition wall is not liked at all. For the others, we would have to consider whether one or the other would be a compromise.... Basically, the reduction only brings slight budget advantages. The kitchen and pantry (actually only a sluice now) are now more comfortably dimensioned, and the ratio of kitchen / study fits better. That the study is one square meter larger than desired is, I think, negligible. I also find the WC / cloakroom solution better than before. We are now at 220m² for the ground floor and upper floor. In the upper floor, I also find the slightly reduced rooms OK – except for the utility room, which has now been reduced for the second time from the last 4.9m² to 5.64m². From the room program standpoint, that is the biggest point of concern I see there... how do you see this and the other changes inside and outside? Unfortunately, many dimension specifications are missing again. For the sake of completeness, I am also posting a completely new draft proposal regarding the exterior look with an even more strongly reduced room program. However, the draft is totally out of the question from the outside. I really asked myself for a moment how something like this could come about if you have talked for so long and intensively and the other draft was so well liked. Here we are at 213m² for the ground floor and upper floor but have a larger utility room with 6.76m². Children’s rooms are slightly smaller. That is still acceptable. The entire upper floor is okay overall. Downstairs, the smaller kitchen is already borderline with the cooking island, isn’t it? The study still just about works, if you close both eyes – actually, it is too small for me. And there is no cloakroom anymore. A lot of restrictions for 7m² less – and with a non-appealing exterior design. So we are not much further than last time now. The static challenges remain. Not even in the new draft can you do without beams. So we can now take one of the two "adjusted" drafts. The utility room would still need to be clarified. And we would have to live with the oversized roof terrace. They write that you can’t get rid of it. By establishing a partial basement, another 30m² could be saved in the basement. However, I have no savings quantification for that yet. They also write that the new draft is cheaper due to the construction method. But that doesn’t help us if we don’t like it. Take a look at the two different approaches on the ground floor plan on how the situation next to the pantry is solved. I will now calmly consider how to proceed. I tend to ask exactly which changes would be necessary to do without the beam. That is mostly what it’s about anyway. Otherwise, live with one of the three static solutions?