Wow, many thanks for the really good inputs, despite my apparently quite unclear information (I really want to try to do better, do you have an example of how something like this can look "good"?).
Here are a few replies to individual statements:
I can’t say anything about that because I lack knowledge of your property, for the rule see recently here:
I thought the elevation meters should be clearly visible on the building envelope picture (1 line = 1 meter), even with a small house we easily come to a 1.5m height difference, which clearly argues for a basement, even if we would only reach "just" 70-80% cost parity – we can and want to use the basement anyway.
The timber frame panel series manufacturers "can’t do that," so the nominal surcharge (although generous enough in itself) is still just a trifle compared to the cost of construction damage.
I naively assumed that the wood cladding is just decoration without function (at most a bit can be saved on plastering if done by the experts), so it could not cause any damage (it’s just "decoration"). For the economy manufacturers, it would probably just be installed additionally on the normal plastered wall – but since cladding is ventilated anyway, the only weak point would be the fastening itself – I assumed this was standard work where nothing could go wrong, but if that is not the case, I am happy to accept that and, if necessary, fall back on your suggestion:
Another alternative would be to put such a "Maybach from Dacia" on the chopping block ;-)
Terribly unfortunate, but if the budget forces us into economy, so be it.
I know so many who pile up beautiful hillside plots by 2 m – no idea why :/
How do you conclude that? As far as we are concerned, the plot will remain as natural as possible (also the garden according to the natural slope). The terrace will probably be more like a balcony-terrace mix that gently follows the natural slope into the hillside next to the house. Right at the house there might be one or the other meter flatter for practical reasons, also the cars in the carport/garage should probably stand level, but otherwise everything may remain as natural as possible – if after the excavation any "natural" at all remains ;)
We live in a house that can have wood cladding outside, exposed wood inside, and is on a hill.
I’ll take a look, thanks!
I find the floor plans confusing and missing dimensions.
I thought that would be less important initially, since it was mainly about the basic arrangement of rooms.
Still, why is the basement not planned? Everything is squeezed into the 1.5 floors above.
Hmm, that’s not quite clear to me: nice (livable) rooms are only conceivable in the basement downstairs, facing south – there we have planned 2 important rooms: hobby/sauna room and family expansion (guest room and future 3rd child/youth room or office, if we save that on the ground floor). Sure, one might plan a 3rd room also facing south, but then we would have this problem:
Why this long access path all around the house?
We don’t have that at all: We go straight from the street (down south) to the basement entrance – it can’t be shorter. Hence, the nice, spacious corridor in the basement in the middle, bright and without unnecessary detours to get into the house. This "we walk once around the house to sneak in through the back" hillside construction method appeals less to us.
The budget for the outdoor area is lacking
I see the budget as too tight
Yes, that is a good question. We want to change as little as possible on the plot, but both parking spaces and probably some retaining wall will be unavoidable, I think. Whether the budget is too tight or not currently depends more than expected on the building partner – even if the estimates may not always be entirely accurate, it is a difference whether I pay 300k or 450k just for the house (basement, outdoor area, and incidental construction costs are relatively independent of the specific builder, so I focus on the house price). Or is a house with basement, incidental costs, and simple outdoor facilities for a real 650k€ no longer realistic (excluding the land)?
In the graphic text you write that the kitchen should be closer to the terrace (so all floor plans are oriented north?).
Yes, or nearly (according to the compass needle in the building envelope drawing). There is also a terrace idea depicted there.
Access would be from the south? It always makes sense to plan the kitchen by the main planned terrace (afternoon/evening use) and then also a direct access from the kitchen.
The main entrance to the house in the basement is on the south, the access to the terrace on the ground floor would be on the west (we quickly dismissed the idea of a balcony running all around the house for cost reasons ;)). Thanks, that is really an experience-based argument for the kitchen in the northwest (because then next to the terrace). Direct access from the kitchen may be more valuable in everyday life than I currently imagine, thanks for the hint, we will take it on board!
And in general, how the whole thing should look as a house with terraces is somewhat unclear. Why even have an access from the "back" on the ground floor?
That access is basically "free" with the economy providers, since these floor plans must also work as series houses without a basement. For us then just a convenient exit to the main garden in the north, which we can do without, or have automatically given up for cost reasons already from the expensive "desired partners," roughly that’s the problem:
Desired partners with minimal floor plan (60-65 sqm/floor): from 450k just the house.
Economy partners with generous floor plan (70-80 sqm/floor): from 300/350k just the house.
Why not use the southern "basement rooms"… e.g., for 2 nice children’s rooms?
Oh, retrospectively I realize that I didn’t specify the basement rooms in the drawing – yes, the two "nice" basement rooms below are of course intended as residential basement, 3rd children’s room + hobby/sauna room.
Maybe also a garage rather in the southwest, so that the roof can be used quasi as a southwest terrace. Then 2 rooms in the southeast of the "basement-GF" and the technology in the southwest.
We have considered that too, but are still hesitant regarding exemptions from the development plan, eaves height would probably not be a problem, building envelope (including garage) is fixed though and rather unwelcome. I cannot quite imagine the rooms; the technology does not actually have to be in the south and can perfectly stay somewhere in the north.
Many many thanks in any case, we appreciate every input!