Floor plan of a single-family house 240 m² with a partially built-over garage

V2 is, in my eyes, again not necessarily something you have to redraw neatly – even if the architect has made an effort to bring expertise and wishes together.

Does your professional opinion always align with your personal preference? Ignoring usability aspects or regulations or creating inefficiencies regarding traffic areas or construction effort is obviously objectively bad. But to consciously pursue a real existing subjective preference is basically the motto of a human life. You yourself write that one must set priorities – or do you assume, based on your experience with incorrigible clients in the past, that these priorities only seemingly exist and one regrets them later when living in the space?

I’ll toss in a few objections to V3 – whether they improve it, change it, or are even understood and taken up, that’s another matter. But I think there’s still more potential.

Thank you! I can understand the objections, although shelving space in the "fitness room" (which is actually supposed to be quite multifunctional) can certainly be used without “cluttering” – plus garage and (shallow) attic. In the case of shelving and dryer, even in the architect’s version of V2 I had such objections, which were then addressed by enlargement. (Of course an expensive solution, but if the rest of the effect does not seem completely wasted, acceptable.) I hope to address the topic of "bringing in protection" with doormat options and cleaning robots. The terrace entrance might be even more problematic than from the garage.

And I doubt the single-story design. With dormers and this KS, it should be a two-story (without calculation, rough estimate)

Under the dormers, the interior height is supposed to be limited to 2.29m, so these areas would belong to the lower third.

Do you favor V2, can that be read out?

Yes, at least we have initially continued to discuss and 'refine' V2. However, the reason was less the internal structure than the division of the garden or its openness towards the street, which we could not come to terms with. The deviation regarding the ridge direction from the series adds to this. On the other hand, with V2 I only see some space wastage on the ground floor (hallway, dining area, guest room) as a problem, but visually/technically in terms of use it seems good to me. Of course, in your version of V3 the route from the study to the kitchen is unbeatable, just as it already is in our three-room apartment.

In your version of V3, of course, the route from the study to the kitchen is unbeatable,

That is very convenient when you want to quickly make a coffee or, conversely, quickly want to go online.

Yes, at least we have first continued to discuss and 'refine' V2.

Yes, basically V2 has more to offer in terms of the house. I would definitely shorten the hallway on the ground floor properly.

Shelf space yes in the "fitness room"

uh... no... shelves with 30 cm depth or garage shelves do not replace wardrobes where seasonal clothing is stored or boxes can be stored. That needs to be differentiated.

The floor plans are hopefully not finalized yet.

If you have understood and follow my house-building roadmap, of course not yet.

Not addressing the other topics is supposed to help think more distantly about the design? On the other hand, insights for the floor plan might still emerge from the side topics.

The meditative/contemplative resting of the builders with the dough is an essential and integral part of the dough resting, otherwise, it serves the builders significantly less. Going into resonance with reflection is naturally a "desired" effect of the measure. Consider that here peace must be made with the alternatives no longer pursued. Without this "mourning process," they flicker up again and again undead, and in the worst case, you drive your planner to the brink of madness like Princess . Relevant insights for the floor plan emerge automatically during the setting of the course, "or they may remain silent forever." I have doubts whether you have fully understood the process. If needed, there is also a dialogue option in the posts on "A house-building roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!" Consider that I did by no means vote for V2 as the "winner," but only recommended it as the candidate for the further selective breeding of distillation after the setting of the course. Impulses will still come automatically from the setting of the course and then finally flow into the design (that is performance phase 3) — by far not yet into performance phase 5, in which such minor details as canopies are then allowed to speak up.

The interior height under the dormers is supposed to be limited to 2.29 m, so that these areas would belong to the low third.

That is an explicitly unfair trick to undercut the full floor count, which accordingly leads to disqualification.

I really say this rarely but I would vote in favor of the basement here. Otherwise, it’s just one big squeeze and in the end you have nothing but tiny bathrooms and mini offices. The fitness room can go down there nicely, [Technik und Wäsche], two-thirds of the basement is already full.

I rarely say this, but I would vote here in favor of the basement.

I have not explicitly "checked" what the property says about the basement question. Of course, one can also override a "would be luxury" basement vote of the property – however, before making the decision (after phase 1, before phase 2) whether it should be II or II+K=3 levels on which the room program is distributed. My vote for V2 as a breeding basis for setting the course assumes that phase 2 has been carried out properly, meaning that the architect has made a proposal here whose room locations (on which floor) and sizes have already been "checked."