If the 2nd full floor is not constructed in the attic, the building depth equals the width

Okay, then you would really have to talk to a lawyer there, unfortunately our floor plan would not work like that....

I think that's a waste of money. Even if the wording in the development plan were not legally binding, you probably still wouldn't get a building permit. You have already started a dispute, so they will definitely take a close look the next time you want something. Before threatening with a lawyer, send the architect first. That will probably be more effective.

...you always meet twice in life. And if I were sitting in the town hall, I would have everything checked down to the last detail after the construction execution for the plaintiff. You are sure to find something that you can then dismantle/change at great expense... What you do to me, I do to you...

Okay, then you would really have to talk to a lawyer there, unfortunately our floor plan would not work like that....

No, as I already said,

we are talking here about a hefty eight hundred square meters that the applicant is then allowed to buy.

under these circumstances you should rather embarrassingly question your architect about why the floor plan does not work. You won’t find better conditions at the moment. Shame on every floor plan that still fails here!

I don’t find the regulation arbitrary at all. The square shape of the two-story building reminds me of the coffee grinder houses.

No, the square floor plan belongs less to the historic city villa and more to the modern replacement villa. And the justification of the development plan—scandalously, however, not for the justification of the squareness but unrelated to it elsewhere—speaks of city villas that “should not look like disguised multi-family houses.” They would not, however, even with the floor plan aspect ratio of 11:9. “Characteristic” for the modern replacement villa would rather be—though not required here!—a hip roof and an overdosed symmetry (but with L-shaped porch!). The Romans of all countries are crazy (if I may mix Marx and Asterix here). Since garden gnomes have been making development plans, more and more nonsense has come out.

No, the square floor plan belongs less to the historical city villa than to the modern substitute villa.

This time, unfortunately, I can't follow you either, and I have quite a few years of practice. The Dresden coffee grinders are known precisely because of their squareness (and the pronounced tent roof). I am unfortunately very bad at history, but I would still claim that they can be counted among the historic buildings.

And the reasoning of the development plan – scandalously, however, not for the reason of squareness, but unrelated at another point – speaks of city villas that "should not look like disguised apartment buildings."

Excuse me, what?

By goodwill, I meant that you can't plan to be exactly the same length/width down to the meter

Huh? Why shouldn't you be able to do that?

This time I unfortunately can't follow you either, and I have several years of practice. The Dresden coffee grinders are known precisely for their squareness (and the pronounced tent roof).

I was talking about the city villa (not in the neo-sense of the word), and not explicitly about the coffee grinder. The city villa was originally not dogmatically square; that only came about with the Anstattvilla.

Excuse me, what?

On page 16 of the 75-page development plan justification it seriously says: "The deviating construction method is intended to ensure that in the planning area, if two-story buildings are erected, they appear visually like typical city villas and not like disguised multi-family houses, which would contradict the intended local image in this subarea". I don't know what to say.