Floor plan single-family house city villa – modern architectural design

Your counterargument against the architect is understandable to me, however, I do not count bricks either. The architect has implemented the wishes previously expressed by @lawyer_51 well. He does not build like "one" builds, but listens.

I do not count bricks, I merely avoid disturbing their rhythm. An architect should understand the meaning of the concept "interlocking instead of mortar filling of the joint seams"; the fantasy dimensions are a pattern without value. That the architect listens only to the client and not also to the property I consider a mistake, and surely it is unnecessarily expensive (and does not better serve the all-children floor or other wishes). Alone the cost group "avoidable terrain modeling costs" is likely to exceed the sum of your driveway and Rick’s windows. Of course, if one not only has financial freedom but is explicitly willing to use it for that purpose, it is "a matter of taste" like, for other people, an Urus, Huracan, or gilded garden hose faucet. Or a zigzag wall that only impresses the piano ;-)

I am not counting bricks, but merely avoiding disruptions to their rhythmic pattern. An architect should understand the concept of "interlocking instead of filling the joints" — the fantasy dimensions are a pattern without value.

That certainly makes sense, but other dimensions can be manufactured perfectly technically. Custom sizes cost money, not necessarily quality.

That the architect listens only to the client and not also to the property, I consider a mistake, and it is certainly unnecessarily expensive (and does not better serve the mezzanine or other wishes).

The client wants a differently shaped property and gets exactly that. Even though I can gain a lot from the slope — a requirement is a requirement.

The cost group "avoidable terrain modeling costs" alone is likely to exceed the sum of your driveway and Rick’s windows

What is really "avoidable" — the terrain modeling costs, as shown, are about as much as a whole house on a simple flat plot. I see that too, but the budget is the client’s matter, who settled this topic matching the building project right from the start.

Of course, if you not only have the financial freedom but are explicitly willing to use it for that, it is a "matter of taste" like a Urus is for other people...

Exactly. Challenges you can solve with money, you solve with money. People have different limits of availability and willingness to invest. The client’s standard counts. The Urus is quite a good example. Prospective buyers of this niche vehicle don’t worry about how to finance it, but only whether they want it. Financial resources help when building. They don’t help with other things. That’s why I always urge so much to deal with what quality of life really means for oneself. How should life feel in the house at which season, on which occasion, in which mood, with which family dynamics? What can architecture contribute to make this feeling of life come about with ease? My claim on a residence is that it supports me in feeling comfortable. There are some very austere designs where I think: I could live very well in that. From my point of view, for residential architecture the emotional clarity of the client’s requirements is the crucial factor for a house to really fit excellently. Much, much more than the budget.

That certainly makes sense, but other dimensions can be technically manufactured without any issues. Custom sizes cost money, not necessarily quality.

Nonsense. I do not get the impression that we are dealing here with "custom sizes" (for example, because the client’s step dimension or, say, for reasons of satanic belief, 666 mm is supposed to be the planning grid, Madame Glaskuglia would have seen these dimensions or something like that). Rather, it seems to be the attitude of a sloppy planner: "I, star architect, will send you, worm of a mason, to the saw as often as it pleases me," which, in my view, is a completely disgusting disregard for the craftsperson co-creators of the building. Today’s masonry systems use pure stretcher or header bonds with serrations or grooves in the dry joints. Clumsy amputations of these interfaces and the occasional switch to the concept of grouting are simply disturbances of the bond and the work process, to which exactly zero point zero zero zero advantages correspond. It is simply about the generation of architects using CAD thinking it is “revolutionarily modern” not to have Neufert under their pillows anymore. What would truly be different only from the standpoint of taste or opinion diversity might also have advantages that could be set against its disadvantages. However, this disregard of the octameter cannot claim that for itself.

The client wants a differently shaped plot and gets it. Even though I can appreciate the slope a great deal – a requirement is a requirement. [/] What is already “avoidable” – the terrain modeling costs as much as a whole house on a simple flat plot as shown. I see that too, but the budget is the client’s matter, who settled the issue corresponding to the building project right at the beginning.

You cannot sweet-talk me about topography violation with any silver tongue. I must have (where?) overlooked an explicit wish of the OP for parity between the terrain modeling and construction costs. My impression is rather that he is impressed that the architect, measured by how the clients had envisioned the result, already hit close to the mark with the first try. I do not envy him this joy or want to speak badly of it; I merely note that, in my opinion, a systematically working architect would have proceeded more sensibly and would not have started in third gear. Fans of molten lead are allowed their fun with the infinite monkey approach here; I, an old white man, just paint a big question mark behind it and issue my warning that, in my experience, there is a suspicion here of a “ warns” architect. In that context, I forecast poor budget adherence, although this, in the case of a “carte blanche,” of course, is not out of control.

I simply see sloppiness in the professional approach of the planner here, and none of it in an irreplaceable way serves the fortune of a family with five children.

In another thread, a new build is being planned here that looks like a settlement house with a pineapple attached. This is also not punishable, but in my world, nicely put, "not first choice." I prefer the architects who studied "before Pisa" ;-)

the concept of pointing

So honestly: I still don’t see a photo of a botched shell construction, nor the concept of pointing. That may be the case with some bricklayers, but not with everyone. The concept of stone cutting still exists.
Our shell construction took a whole 6 weeks. That is 3 times longer than the standard houses around us. And why? Because Madame, that is me, chose different parapet heights for the windows on the design side, plus an offset roof with two different slopes. It may be that in hindsight this was not very wise. Still, there were no sloppy pointing between the stones. They were professionally split by the master bricklayer plus assistant and cut to angle measurements at the gable. And that by a small bricklayer who was commissioned by the general contractor or who participated in the tender.
So whoever has the necessary money can also pay a good bricklaying company that delivers clean work. Nowadays not everything is botched and quick, even if one might think so. Times change, and with time the demands on craftsmanship, too. However, you can’t tar everyone with the same brush. And one good thing about the changing times is that you have more possibilities. Back then there was the sand-lime brick, which was taken crosswise and straight. It was hard and thus resisted a simple saw. Nowadays, for example, you can also build well with aerated concrete – that makes the heart laugh, how easily the saw cuts through it.

You can't sugarcoat the topography violation to me with the sweetest words.

I'm not doing that. I'm stating: There is a plot of land that the builder doesn't like as it is now, because it has a slope, and the builder would prefer it flat. The architect consistently implements this in his design. That is his task. We have not been involved in the advisory discussions about this.

I do not have the impression that we are dealing here with "special dimensions"

I have no idea what you are reading into that word. “Special dimension” simply means “not a standard dimension” – for whatever reasons the non-standard was chosen.

Planning with imaginary measurements shows both little expertise in the field and zero respect towards the bricklayers.

I have no idea what you interpret into this word. "Special size" simply means "no standard size" - for whatever reasons the non-standard is chosen.

Whether special or imaginary measurements - one might think everyone means the same ;)