How high does the house rise - how high to pile up earth (cellar depth low)?

The correction of this mess will, in my opinion, cost around 70 to 100K – depending on the execution.

Exactly, so the multiple dozen times the claimed "savings".

Normally, you only dig one pit for the basement plus movement space. You don’t excavate the entire site down to the basement floor slab. That is almost a foolish prank.

Unless the excavation for the construction of the basement was the idea of the builders to reduce the costs for the construction pit.

Honestly, I fully expect something like that from such a formidably year-in-review-worthy Pyrrhic victor like the OP. However, I wouldn’t agree with the "almost" before the foolish prank ;-)

So you wouldn’t heap up 2 meters in the area of the patio door either

Under no circumstances would I ever, ever, ever heap up a MAN-SIZED amount (unless I were a producer of a scripted construction botch show on Surreality TV).

You were not / poorly advised or informed. He bears partial blame and should participate in the costs to fix the mishap.

I would have it checked whether the general contractor advised and built correctly. The builders seem too inexperienced and naive to assess offers from a gardening and landscaping contractor. Otherwise, this will be the next debacle.

At best, this is a moral misadvice here; a construction contract is not a financial or insurance product. If (and this is how I understood it) the terrace and exterior works are "by the builder," I fear that legally speaking the general contractor has even delivered and performed a defect-free work here. "Failure to provide assistance against naivety" is, as far as I know, not punishable.

1. Money for a lifting station should be saved 2. A general contractor with a cheap offer was sought 3. GC proposal with high-rise planning was approved 1:1 by the client = thread starter

2. A general contractor with a cheap offer (probably for a finished own plan or similar) was sought; 1. one of the bidding GCs pointed out the drainage height problem; 3. the OP thought: he is a fair buddy, the only honorable pro pointing out this problem, and even generously refrains from the chance to rip us off with an expensive lifting station > > > we’ll take him!

"Failure to provide assistance due to naivety" is, as far as I know, not punishable.

I don't find the matter that clear. In a new building, a licensed professional must be involved who has to endorse the design. The service, for example, of an architect corresponds in my opinion to a consulting service for which he is also liable. Quickly from the internet:

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified with its judgment of July 10, 2014 (Az.: VII ZR 55/13) that the architect is already obliged during the basic evaluation phase to discuss the client's wishes with him and advise him accordingly about feasibility. If he fails or only inadequately fulfills this duty and the client invests in a building based on incorrect advice that he actually does not want, the architect is liable for damages. The damage can include the costs of planning, preparation, and demolition.

I find the feasibility of the client's wishes already very borderline here regarding the terrace. However, whether one can prove that the advice was inadequate—I would not want to put myself out there. I would first think intensively about which solution is acceptable and then bargain a little with the general contractor.
But I want to emphasize again that I am only an amateur.

2. A general contractor with a cheap offer (probably for a finished owner’s plan or similar) was sought;
1. of the contracting general contractors, one pointed out the drainage height issue;
3. the original poster thought: he’s a fair guy, the only honorable professional who points out this problem, and even generously refrains from taking the chance to rip us off with an expensive lifting system > > > we’ll take him!

Actually, I don’t really feel like responding to your cynical, condescending post. Apparently, you find satisfaction in attacking our case and venting instead of contributing constructively.

oh yes: It was the opposite of a cheap house from a brochure:
An architect’s house with free planning by a renowned architect who is also a general contractor, who already built my parents’ house 30 years ago and that of several school friends. And all of those are completely free of defects.

An architect-designed house with free planning by a renowned architect, who is also the general contractor, who built my parents' house 30 years ago as well as that of several school friends. And all of these are completely free of defects.

What does he actually say about it? Have you already addressed the problem?

then the architect should take a closer look at the outside area and put affordable proposals on the table.

oh yes: It was the opposite of a cheap house from the brochure:
An architect-designed house with free planning by a renowned architect, who is also the general contractor, who built my parents' house 30 years ago and that of several school friends. And all of these completely free of defects.

So in the end just a general contractor and not a "real" architect's house. He planned it - in coordination with you - according to your wishes and budget.

I don't find the matter that clear. For a new building, a licensed specialist definitely has to be involved who must represent the design. The service, for example, of an architect corresponds in my opinion to a consulting service for which he is also liable. Quickly from the net:

The architect = architect did that, if I understand the original poster's explanations. They talked together about the drainage issue and jointly agreed that the house should be raised.

In the end, it doesn't matter who did what. The original poster approved everything and planned together with the general contractor/architect.

Therefore, now the cart has to be pulled out of the mud. But (unfortunately) only by the original poster. And that will a) cost a lot of money and effort or b) entail a complete adjustment of the outdoor facilities.