General criticism of architecture, spatial layout, exterior appearance

The "problem" in the new development area is that the construction road is currently almost 1.3m above the ground. Therefore, all plots actually need to be built up. This has already been the case in the neighboring municipalities, and most then bring the floor slab (if there is no basement) up to street level. Whether top edge, bottom edge, etc. In my opinion, no one will leave their plot that low because they will then have problems when it rains. So far, we want the bottom edge of the ground edge to be at the top edge of the street. For me, though, this is already off-topic, but I am happy to answer the questions

But this should not be off-topic, because this circumstance can become expensive for you if, for example, both neighbors do not build up, then you have to catch them and retaining walls are not exactly cheap.

Completely unrelated, has your planner ever calculated how much more expensive a basement is compared to building up?

By the way, through posting the cadastral map, it now also becomes clear to me why you don’t want floor-to-ceiling windows in the children's rooms. Because there is a neighbor opposite. Although you could go further and you would also have to omit the floor-to-ceiling windows on the ground floor and the second floor.

I would choose floor-to-ceiling windows everywhere except possibly behind the couch and install pleated blinds in the children's rooms. Because nothing beats natural daylight.

Regarding your questions:

1. Nowadays, for example, in my region, the Stuttgart metropolitan area, everything sells. I don't know how it is in your area. And no one here can tell you whether a potential buyer will come who pays the required price. To me, the planning as it stands today makes a good impression.

2. I have already expressed my opinion.

Obsolete would therefore be, given the limited range of questions to the forum here, also the question to the planner whether, with a fill height of 1.3 m - and thus above the legally tolerated 1.0 m - the clearance areas to the boundary for the fill (including retaining walls) are not triggered even in the reverse conclusion to § 6 para. 8, sentence 2 no. 2 of the Hessian Building Code.

Completely detached. Has your planner ever calculated how much more expensive a basement is compared to filling up?

He would only prop up the ground floor but not smooth out the height difference between the street and the driveway.

This would also make obsolete the question to the planner whether, with a 1.3 m fill height – and thus above the legally tolerated 1.0 m – the distance area to the boundary for the fill itself would not be triggered as a result of § 6 para. 8 sentence 2 no. 2 of the Hessian Building Code.

By what would this question become obsolete?

If the drawings exactly reproduce reality, they are shown as "distorted".

In a "3D" isometry, the weighting of dimensions and perspectives is generally difficult for "outsiders" to assess, while here at least the "core staff" has a lot of practice in reading development plans and survey maps (with elevation markers).

That's how it is, as 11ant says: although some programs are relatively good in their 3D views, they are still 2D drawing programs and display distances distorted in their 3D views – you cannot judge sizes and distances.

Fault does not appear in my language usage. Maybe the forum itself is to blame, as it actively participates.
Answers can be unpleasant, the forum knows that.

I have contributed my two cents to point 2.
Regarding point 1: it may be, but it does not have to be. If it only had one staircase, I would buy it; with the stepped floor, I wouldn't. If it had the style of a symmetrical town villa, I would continue to look. But others think the opposite again.

That would only jack up the ground floor, but not flatten out the height difference between street and driveway.

You don’t say, honestly I hadn’t thought of that... I honestly have no idea.

The house has a floor area of 11.13 m by 9.57 m. I need at least 140 cubic meters of fill material and I don’t think soil will be enough; instead, reinforced concrete gravel (KFT) must be used. With a conversion factor of 1.8, we’re talking about 253 tons of material. And I’m only talking about the house area here. The yard and entrance area still have to be added.

And the rest of the property is supposedly going to be filled as well. That’s another easy 300 square meters...

What would make this question obsolete?

In #49, the OP's questions are essentially limited to two...