Floor plan opinions single-family house 140 sqm 2 full floors

What is your drawing supposed to tell us: You want to take a construction proposal with the original size 9.88 x 7.78 as inspiration, but implement it in the size 10.49 x 8.61? And again you start with the ground floor? (the first I just don’t understand, the second sounds like a negative learning curve)

yes correct, that’s how I intended it.

I actually tried to start with the upper floor. I once had a staircase that was more like a ladder or a staircase that came out in the middle of the house. I couldn’t do anything at all with that downstairs. Well, whatever.

I actually tried starting with the upper floor (OG). I once had a staircase that was more like a ladder or a staircase that came out in the middle of the house. Downstairs, I couldn’t make head or tail of it at all.

It will be the same for you in reverse with the upper floor (OG) where you have now started with the ground floor (EG): the space gained by enlarging the ground floor (EG) is consumed on the upper floor (OG) (and even more so in cases where that is an attic floor (DG)) so that the rooms there "still" function. I don’t say this about starting on the upper floor (OG) to make self-planning laypeople (for whom doing it this way around is unusual) sweat, but quite the opposite: so that they despair, cry, and tear their hair out less because the drawn-up calculation doesn’t work out (or to save them from having to invest in expensive additional square meters). Or put into German as a foreign language (DaF) on your request: if you manage better by starting with the ground floor (EG), this will be a deceptive illusion. Either you then have the torment when you derive the upper floor (OG) from that ground floor (EG). Or it may seem relaxed, but unfortunately at the price that it becomes larger than necessary with skilled planning.

Either I have a mistake

You don't just enlarge clumsily, but design according to the given staircase (or the dimensions that are apparently already fixed in stone with you) for example like this, quick and dirty (without the pantry you would have more kitchen cabinets, you can do that BUT you don't have to:

You probably mean a straight staircase with two flights and a winder instead of a landing (?)

Exactly. Winder, because a landing staircase requires more length. (I find landing staircases nicer, but oh well. Space requirements are an issue here.)

Regarding the floor plans in post 86:
Somehow I think the idea is cool to integrate the staircase between the rooms like that. I still can’t quite imagine the effect.

What I see as another possibility for optimization: windows on the ground floor, especially in the plan on the right. There are none. And that makes quite a statement.

The window areas seem very unevenly distributed to me anyway (for example, upstairs on the right side there are many windows, but on the left only one).

I know there was once a north arrow – but I have successfully suppressed it and therefore no longer have the cardinal directions in mind.

Exactly. Switchback, because a stair with a landing requires more length. (I find stair landings more beautiful, but well. Space requirements are an issue here.)

I perceive landings as an interruption of the walking rhythm and only divide or bend stairs so that they do not assert dominance or even disturb the floor plan. Landings often cause bay windows (at their end or the opposite end, if the sum of the stair axis and banquet table axis in their extension dominates or even exceeds the house depth). Sorry that this is not DaF again, but switching costs me significant time.

I know that there once was a north arrow – however, I have successfully repressed it and therefore no longer have the cardinal directions on my radar.

I consider the old practice timeless, only to override the default assumed north with a clearly visible north arrow "at the top of the plan."