Floor plan of a two-family house with a stepped floor - too compact?

But unfortunately the house became too wide for us as a result.

Visually? There is also the option of an optical townhouse villa with an extension, thus the floor plan in an L shape. I'll put it this way: as a senior, I would be happy with my unit; as a family member of a family of five, I say: we don’t all fit on the balcony in the evening to grill and eat dinner. As a child, I say: Mom, come with me to the garden. In the garden, I then say: Mom, I have to go. I'm not a pronounced egoist, but if I build my house, then without any obstacle between kitchen and garden. I go back and forth up to 20 times without children between terrace and kitchen because the day’s work takes place inside and outside.

Visually? There is also the option of an optical city villa with an extension, i.e. a footprint in the shape of an L.

Visually and also physically. With an extension or a wider house, we would have only about 6m of garden to the south and about 5m to the west. This would make the house look somewhat oversized on the relatively small plot.

I’ll put it this way: as a senior, I would be happy with my unit; as a family member of a five-person family, I say: we don’t all fit on the balcony in the evening to grill and have dinner. As a child, I say: Mom, come with me to the garden. In the garden I say: Mom, I need to go. I’m not a pronounced egoist, but if I build my house, it will be without any barriers between kitchen and garden. I go back and forth up to 20 times without children between terrace and kitchen because day-to-day life happens indoors and outdoors.

…we still have the roof terrace in addition to the balcony :-). You are, of course, absolutely right. I believe there is no perfect solution with our family constellation. So we accept the small disadvantage, and the parents have the comfortable ground floor apartment.

By the way, which of the two houses looks better to you purely from an aesthetic point of view?

That could

That could then only be the baby of the family, since the apartment is not available beforehand, so ... in 20 years? No idea how your scheduling looks, but there are indeed one or two dependencies.

Unfortunately, there are always some dependencies in life. But luckily we can finance the house even without a tenant :-).

Of course, I don't know who will be living upstairs in the house in 10, 15, or 20 years at this point. We are reasonably satisfied that we have more than one option for later. By the way, the house is "only" 240m2 in size.

So, we’ve now gotten past the appetizers – what’s for the main course that might really upset us

I don’t want to dig too deep into some details now, since with the draft in post #14 you have found a decidedly better solution that is clearly a relaunch instead of the overly elaborate “way beyond the comma” tuning so popular with most questioners here. I will therefore limit myself to points that “remain valid”: in my assessment – let us recall the overall situation from – the truncated corner of plots 1463 and 1469 does not serve exclusively for the access of 1464 and 1477. Rather, I could well imagine that the municipality intends access rights there for all cul-de-sac residents and does not want to approve it at Buchenweg. If you – finally someone understands me, I had hardly dared to dream it – want to give the cars the spaces that remain, then you are of course more flexible in arranging the parking spaces. Otherwise, I advise considering the parking spaces already at this stage of the planning discussion – this especially applies if my above assessment should be correct. At least it seems advisable to clarify how the municipality would view the idea of two accesses for the three parking spaces. Not quite my dream would be the locations of load-bearing walls where non-load-bearing ones stand beneath – what if steel doesn’t play Rolex but is manageable.

By the way, which of the two houses looks better to you purely visually?

Here, too, I definitely give the point to the newer one. It is by far more suitable to undergo the mentioned usage changes. Judging by the floor plans and the appearance, I suspect Favorit as general contractor in both cases.

Certainly, the variant where everyone gets a part of the ground floor is nicer to live in. However, on the upper floor it is then very family-oriented and less suitable for possible later rental if two apartments are only separated by a normal interior door. In addition, the granny flat then has no separate access to the technical and utility room and also has rather little possibility to install a washing machine in the bathroom. With this option, you are definitely committing to a family house; with strangers, it is rather not suitable. But I would definitely be interested in seeing it placed on the plot. How much of the garden would actually remain.

With the variant with the staggered floor, I would probably omit the balcony on the upper floor. With 5 people, it is much too small for eating together and for mild summer evenings, you have both the garden and the roof terrace.

Regarding the subsidy...you have to finance it fully yourselves and you normally get it deducted from the debt two years after the loan application. The bank therefore has to be willing to finance the full amount.

we would only have about 6m of garden to the south and about 5m to the west.

still better than just balconies or climbing stairs to the garden ;)

By the way, which of the two houses looks better to you just visually?

the second one, the wider one. It is wide but reasonably tall. The first one with the stepped roof doesn’t appeal to me personally because of the height.

That would have made the house look somewhat oversized on the relatively small plot.

But you have to feel comfortable :)