Ground plan design single-family house 165 sqm without basement on 400 sqm plot

40° or not less than 40° is intended in order to maintain the proportions of house width/height within the frame.

The small extra room for dad on the upper floor

... is just as much in reality only a leftover floor plan as the poorly furnishable study.

The design turned out the way it is because the architect implemented our wishes and specifications almost 1:1. This basic floor plan draft came out in the first instance. [...] It is to be built with timber frame construction. With a local timber builder.

Then you probably made too many specifications. I hardly see the design improving significantly with this planner either, and under this condition, there is no advantage in the local timber builder either. As recommendable as the local/regional general contractor is for masonry construction, one unfortunately has to observe that the small carpenters are often almost equally in need of development evolutionarily as the well-known prefab house builders fifty years ago. The house would be favorably proportioned 10m wide and one meter shorter with the same floor area, but even then still borderline narrow for a straight staircase with one flight, which here by the way seems to me to be chosen as narrowly as possible according to standards (four meters of claustrophobic tunnel for a mere quick-through-floor-change experience, the unplasterable window does not compensate for this). And hopefully every layman also sees how much hallway area it produces. I would see the entrance more favorably where the study window currently is. "Laundry room" probably means the utility room, and "utility room" means the HAR (?). Find a freelance architect, do the "Module A" with them, and then during the resting phase of the dough, determine openly the more suitable construction method. With 31° roof pitch, you shouldn’t have to skimp on the house width – nevertheless, I consider 85 cm of waste next to the garage nonsense. Still, show the elevations of how the planner envisions the windows (parapet height 45!) on the upper floor. One more question to your honor: did you already have this design when you placed the dummy on the site?

One more question on my honor: did you already have this draft when you placed the dummy on the property?

I hope not. I had already invested some time by then.

... is just as much in reality only a floor plan remnant as the poorly furnishable study.

Which we actually thought we could use well. In my opinion, the corner in the office is perfect as a small filing nook with a place for the printer, and the rest of the room remains unaffected and neatly square.

The house would be 10m wide with the same floor area but one meter shorter, more favorably proportioned, but still borderline narrow for a single-flight straight staircase, which here seems to me to be chosen as narrowly as possible according to standards (four meters of a claustrophobic tunnel for a mere quick-through floor change experience, which the unplasterable window does not compensate for). And hopefully every layman can see how much hallway area it produces. I would prefer the entrance where the study window currently is. "Laundry room" probably means the utility room, and "utility room" the HAR (?).

Thanks, those are clear points.
What would be the alternative? An "unattractive" compact half-turn staircase?
The thing about the entrance is a good point.
Yes, utility room HAR. Below the technical room, above laundry.

Yes, yes, I already had the plan in the other thread, I just didn’t think it was relevant for the fundamental question. Sorry if that annoyed you ;-)

But thanks, I'll think about it. He probably has already received too much info. But I trust the carpenter quite a bit. He surely is not stuck in 1970 :-D

Yes yes, I already had the plan in the other thread, I just didn’t think it was relevant for the fundamental question. Sorry if that annoyed you ;-)

Not annoyed, but the waste

I hope not. I had already invested some time in it.

is already, I would say "rude". And you’ve certainly had the chance to "enjoy" the misjudgments of various questioners about the supposed irrelevance of essentials :-(

That with the entrance is a good point.

For example.

Which we actually thought we could use well. The corner in the office is, in my opinion, perfect as a small filing nook with a printer spot and the rest of the room stays untouched and neatly square.

Then just put the printer right in the hobby room upstairs, that keeps you fit. You can think of Knut Buttnase’s favorite word yourself here.

What would be the alternative? An "ugly" compact half-turned staircase?

It’s not a staircase’s job to lie as crosswise as possible in a floor plan’s gut.

Yes utility room HAR. Underneath the technical room, laundry upstairs.

Then the planner should simply name the rooms purposefully. One hardly dares to hope that the HAR here is more than a dummy but actually furnished with realistic clutter (including exclusion areas).

He probably really already got too much info.

The most common "foundation" of botched floor plans is too many wishes for the particular floor area. Not least straight single-flight stairs are the literal "stick in the ass."

But I trust the timber builder for quite a bit. He surely is not stuck in 1970 :-D

Of course they are "modern" in terms of installation layers, cellulose insulation and so on. But in rethinking from village hut to industrial operation, they often stand just as much at the beginning as their big "role models" long ago. The carpenters are much fitter in this than the joiners, although both are "wood heads" ...