Is a bungalow possible? What speaks against a bungalow?

I personally grew up mostly in various buildings with sloping ceilings. Annoying are slopes that start too low because they take up space so that even a child's bed does not fit sensibly underneath. Also annoying are roof windows (Velux) because they are loud during precipitation (but you can get used to that), expensive, and the durability and quality... well. Accessories are also outrageously expensive. But! Rooms with sloping ceilings are exciting, especially when they are living spaces. My favorite apartments were never rectangular and straight.

more elaborate roof

Especially with an angled bungalow, a hip roof usually looks best, but that does not necessarily go hand in hand with a bungalow. Gable, shed, or flat roofs are also possible.

600 x 0.35 = 210 sqm Bungalow 140 sqm + wall base areas = 175 sqm Difference = 35 sqm Double garage needs about 36 to 50 sqm Conclusion: that is already not enough without driveway paving, the terrace (fully counts in the floor area ratio) also does not fit in. From about 900 sqm it would be clearly more feasible.

I see the plot strongly contradicting that. What does the roof pitch in the development plan say about the sense of a one-point-zero story? And: what exactly is the objection to the roof slopes: "fear" of only moderately usable areas? (that could possibly be met with a knee wall).

Ok I already see it will be difficult to realize. Actually, we wanted a two-story house with a shed roof. But that is simply not allowed. For the 1.5 stories that we are allowed to build, the knee wall can only be 1.20 m. That seems quite little to us. We wanted to avoid bay windows and dormers due to the higher costs. So we wanted the two-story with a shed roof without any frills or else a bungalow. But then we will probably have to live with sloped ceilings.

If I were you, I would interrogate myself with this sentence. What don’t you like about pitched ceilings? On a scale from 1 to 10... do you just want to avoid them? Would it be nice not to have them? Is it just a statement born out of laziness because when designing a house _with_ pitched ceilings you have to think a bit? Pitched ceilings also have advantages: the roof resists the wind and prevents a house from looking bulky. A house is only a house if it fits Nikolaus ;) Besides, the rooms are cozier. With a proper knee wall and a good roof pitch, you can combine all the advantages.

So primarily my boyfriend doesn’t want pitched ceilings because of his height (2 m). During many visits to attic apartments, that was often really impractical with that body height. According to the development plan, we are only allowed to make the knee wall 1.20 m high. That seems quite low to me. Personally, I don’t like the slants because of the furniture placement possibilities. Why build such complications if you don’t have to... but well... we probably have to now.

Is the knee wall only allowed to be 1.20 meters? That seems quite low to us.

The knee wall alone is not everything. What roof pitches are allowed?

Actually, we wanted a two-story building with a shed roof. But that is simply not permitted.

What exactly is not permitted about that?

Twenty centimeters of knee wall is, firstly, the same for someone who is 200 cm tall as 1 m of knee wall for someone who is 180 cm tall, and secondly, a very practical measurement.

The purpose of a knee wall (= straight continuation of the exterior wall) is to completely substitute a dwarf wall (= inner masonry). This is fulfilled from a height of 1 m.

Knee walls of 120 cm are almost ideal: you can place beds lengthwise against the wall, for that it is high enough; and at the same time, you can still look well out of roof windows, even if you are shorter than 200 cm, for that it is low enough. So practically "fits like a glove."

That a tall lanky person can no longer stand upright when vacuuming at the edge, however, must be accepted.