Location of city villa or single-family house on 500 m2 plot - rectangular

No.
I prepared something: the Scanhaus Marlow Marlow with 3 children’s rooms on the upper floor, office, and utility room... I’m not saying it’s the optimal house, but it illustrates that you have to extend more lengthwise rather than widthwise if you want to accommodate more rooms, even if they are small.

Thanks for the effort. But I guess we are both right. I didn’t say anything different than your example demonstrates, namely that with a rectangular orientation, the house with the same dimensions doesn’t fit in.
From that, it followed for me that the long side must get shorter and the other side longer for the area --> more square-like.
I never claimed that a square house is better.
That’s exactly why I chose an unequal rectangle from the start.

But if I now reduce the area even more, it will only get worse inside the house...
I was just on the page of Scanhaus Marlow. Where is the floor plan variant with 3 children’s rooms and an office in those dimensions? I know we’re not allowed to link externally here, but maybe you can guide me? I can’t find it under SH 142.

Have fun with the daily maneuvering!

I think my model shows that you don’t have to maneuver. You just drive straight in, turn fully, and drive straight out again. And that with a Touran.

Reversing 16 m straight is more the challenge there.

Carport is off the table: the posts make your maneuvering even worse.

A carport can be a boundary structure and still set back behind the house edge. I don’t think it’s as bad as you believe.

With the slant, your windows won’t be stuck against the hedge...
You gain width and several functional garden areas.
I’ll stop now, don’t want to convince anyone of what’s obvious.
You’ll manage.

It’s not that obvious. There are others who don’t find it so great either.
Honestly, it would totally fit my nature to set something at an angle. For example, my desk in the office is also set at an angle.
So it’s not about me not wanting to break conventions (although the building permit for a house set at an angle would still need to be discussed).
But what absolutely doesn’t work for me is the area restriction. And the maximum possible area is lower than with alignment in straight. Aside from the fact that I already consider the area north(east) of the house lost, as I would sacrifice the area in the south...
And to me, that is obvious.

Anyway, I thank you for your input. I did not dismiss it without consideration and trying it out.
And I am grateful for any expertise you would be willing to use for the interior floor plan.

Thanks and best regards

Tolentino

Driving backwards 16m straight ahead is more of the challenge.

There will be a fence on the plan top. The 1.5 meters remaining as space to the house serve as a buffer.

I don’t believe it’s as bad as you think.

I rather believe that as a pragmatist, you don’t see a problem in that, especially since you work from home and don’t have to perform the act of parking and unparking several times a day very often.
Consider, when (3) children are there, one does have to perform these driving skills quite often during the day. That certainly takes practice, but I rather think it can be quite a curse. Especially when there are screaming or rebellious kids sitting in the back seat ... and that is supposed to happen quite often...
But I admit: since I once had a terraced house without a yard/parking space, I tend to criticize when I don’t see a nice front area where one could repair a bicycle or the like without disturbing anyone.

Honestly, it would totally suit my nature to position it somewhat diagonally. My desk in the office, for example, is also positioned diagonally.
So it’s not that I don’t want to break conventions (although the building permit for a diagonally positioned house would still have to be discussed).

Why conventions? Just because many don’t need it, aren’t creative, or mostly because the development plan is somewhat obstructive (ridge orientation, building line, etc.)?
Take a look at the Google location plan you once posted: half the houses in the area are adapted diagonally like that

But what from my point of view is absolutely not acceptable is the spatial restriction.

You don’t have that at all. Look here, I got a bit creative

I won’t comment on the evaluation. It’s about your fear of losing land – or garden...
Certainly both have their advantages and could be improved.

I meant the Scan SH 142 XXL. That is a one-story house, but there is no problem making it two-story.
However, I would note that the money probably won’t be enough for a two-story. But you can do a lot yourself.

Here is the floor plan and some from Danwood with the rather bulky aspect ratio:




I think you now have some inspirations.
By the way, you could also position the house diagonally the other way around and place the car in the resulting "triangle" between the house and the 5-meter boundary. Since you have the south orientation at the tip of the property, you will also benefit with terrace, garden, and light incidence. Provided you see the potential in the diagonal.

Wow thank you very much! We really have to think about that now. I still lose too much Südgarten, but I am already starting to think hard. I also like Abendsonne.

Wow, thank you very much! We really have to think about that now. I still feel like too much south garden is lost, but I'm already starting to ponder it a lot. I also like evening sun

Exactly. In summer (June) the sun sets in the NW. Only in September does it set in the west. You would have both, and the diligent reader here knows that south garden is overrated. Far too big. Go to Sonnenstand dot de or something like that, you can simulate the sun there. And: you can turn the car around. If everything is cleverly arranged, a visitor could also park there. On the north side of the house in the triangle, you can also create an emergency bay. No one measures later if you come within 5 meters.

By the way, you could also position the house diagonally the other way around and place the car in the resulting "triangle" between the house and the 5-meter boundary. Since you have the south orientation at the tip of the property, you will also benefit from terrace, garden, and sunlight. Provided you see the potential in the diagonal

That sounds interesting, especially since you wouldn’t have the house and terrace facing the street, which would be a crucial point for me.

That sounds interesting, especially since you wouldn’t have to face the street with the house and terrace, which would be a crucial point for me.

looking for this sentence or similar statement about the street ....

So it’s a very quiet street, only built with single-family houses and urban villas, without sidewalks. Whether anyone walks there. well.

....I found this:

Guys, you’re making a thinking mistake!

You can’t just assume that on 3 meters width you can park at 90 degrees. That’s not possible unless you add another meter and spend 5 minutes steering each time.
Or a crane.
However, I don’t understand why you’re fixated on the square shape: 3 children’s rooms fit better in an elongated shape, and that is easily doable here.

Pointed out back then!!!

about the street: I don’t know if one always has to panic when the garden is next to the street. For us and the neighbors across from us, it’s absolutely no problem. Now there is an opaque hedge everywhere. And yes: in winter you can see that in some places they are not far from the street. So what?
It’s not a through street. And if it were, there probably would have been consideration beforehand whether the location makes the right property. I don’t see the problem here at all.

And yes: pedestrians also move on streets without sidewalks. They go for walks, shopping, or accompany children. Completely normal sight. And you’ll do the same as your neighbors. That’s called living, breathing fresh air, going outside, and participating in social life.