So, here I am again. The evening "bread" is in the oven and I have a bit more time to take a closer look at the old draft in comparison. I think discarding it is a good idea. Unfortunately, it seems to me that a bad habit has been carried over: both the old and the new draft appear to have started with an idea of a certain level of clarity in the facade design and tried to develop the floor plan within this framework.
What results, for example, is a dissatisfaction with the staircase (but because of its visual impact on the front door position); or just a storage room instead of a dressing room. The latter actually stands in stark contrast to the house planning method of first choosing the eyeshadow and then looking for the blouse to go with it. Such a person would actually want a dressing room that allows for an extensive fashion show.
I would recommend the opposite: first the room program, then the layout, then the shutters, and then check and, if necessary, model them in the elevations.
Hatten wenig Zeit aufgrund der kompletten Neuplanung, haben uns an einen Entwurf von einem großen Fertighaushersteller orientiert, welcher uns gefallen hat. Dieser wurde dann optimiert und an die Hausmaße angepasst.
How little time are we talking about, why does the groundbreaking have to be when?
To "optimize" a design and "adapt it to measurements" is a nice Heisenberg experiment: that "two complementary properties of a particle cannot simultaneously be determined with arbitrary precision" could hardly be illustrated more trivially. "The best-known example of such a pair of properties is position and momentum" – here and in the thread by Ev-Marie86 you can also nicely see it in the pair "functional basic design" and "different dimensions" (or in the thread by Schnuckline in the pair "keep the measurements" but "change the layout").