House on the slope floor plan fine-tuning

The sizes in the house are planned to be extremely generous. In this context, the staircase after the house entrance in the basement catches my attention, which in my opinion starts too close to the wall or you basically have to walk around the corner there. With such a spacious design, the staircase walk should be designed to be smoother. A terrace of 70sqm can be nice, but it doesn't necessarily have to be just because of its size; therefore, I would already think about its use/design in advance. What I also find missing is the type and the resulting view of the house with this canopy. From the feeling, I would have expected a different room height at this size as well. The bedroom on the upper floor seems somewhat meager compared to the overall concept. Is there a reason for the consistently used 80cm door width?

and now back the first draft from our architect. I modified it myself again and ironed out a few weaknesses that arose due to my expressed wishes. The external dimensions are relatively fixed. I am already relatively satisfied but would like to have a few more eyes on it before I return it to the architect.

If that was done by an architect without quotation marks, I suspect that the "modification" consists of cramming in small rooms (and the pursuit of a corner premium). You could already rent the labyrinth as an escape room.

further specifications: according to § 34

My dead grandma (bakery saleswoman, 0 semesters in building law) already doubts with the wrong glasses that the insertion requirement can be fulfilled with this foreign body.

ok. You can't argue against that.

Actually, you can, because in America, they even work.

I am renting it to my husband ;D And for his purposes, he would prefer a room without a window. Also, we have the problem with a window in this room, that the window then lies above the terrace. However, one is currently drawn in.

1. A window is mandatory in a used room.
2. If you know that a terrace will be there, you plan it differently.

So the exterior dimensions should be approximately correct except for a few centimeters. What exactly makes you doubt? For example, I did something like this: I moved the stairs 60 cm and changed some walls on the upper floor.

You mercifully leave the exterior shell as is? Then your view is wrong. The surrounding bands are not visible in any floor plan. The bay window (kitchen) is also not visible in the view.

You moved something around? Show the original, please. Preferably the first draft as well.

You have actually already dealt with the property ;)

Then I can take a look at how your house fits in there. At least not into the surroundings.

The sizes in the house are planned to be overly generous. In this context, the staircase right after the house entrance in the basement catches my eye, which in my opinion starts too close to the wall or you basically have to walk around the corner there. In such a spacious design, the stair passage should be arranged more fluidly.

You are right. Originally, the basement was planned with a room height of 2.40 m. There was then 1.50 m space to the wall (the architect had the entrance door there (see graphic). However, we want to have the garden as high as possible and are now considering an increase in ceiling height to 2.80 m in the basement. However, there would then only be a 1 m passage. We have not yet had a meeting with the architect to address the problem, so in my "tinkering" I simply took the middle and assumed a ceiling height of 2.65 m with an additional step, which would then result in a distance of 1.25 m. It is not optimal, but also not set in stone yet. I have already considered whether it would help if the staircase below was swiveled again towards the wardrobe, almost like a Z-shape. However, this probably does not gain anything and would also be very cumbersome when coming from the garage.

A terrace of 70 sqm can be nice, but it does not necessarily have to be just because of its size; therefore, I would already think about a usage/design in advance. What I also miss there is the type and the resulting view of the house with this roof.

At this point, a seamless roofing with the house is simply important to us. If it were only partially roofed, it might look strange, right? Unfortunately, in the current draft planning, she did not implement it that way, but with an attached roof. Also, contrary to her representation, we want the garden to be somewhat elevated compared to the terrace, almost with a few steps up to the garden.
[ATTACH alt="Hausansicht Garten.png"]89974[/ATTACH]

From the feeling, I would have expected a different room height at this size. The bedroom on the upper floor seems a bit meager to me, considering the overall concept. Is there a reason for the consistently used 80 cm door width?

How high then? Currently, the ground floor and upper floor are already raised to 2.70 m, right? The bedroom is deliberately this small. We only stay there for sleeping. And the rest of the parents’ area is huge. It is more important to me that the children’s rooms are larger. Oh, actually I just took the standard doors from the program (I really have not thought about that yet. What is the usual standard?)

I am also surprised by the exterior appearance in connection with Paragraph 34. But you said there is a building permit for a (optically!?) very similar house?