modern Bauhaus, lots of glass, 170 sqm ground floor/upper floor, currently in phase 3

the roof shape was definitely a topic for us.
But it’s supposed to be okay if this supposedly doesn’t matter.

See the law, preferably with explanations, as it is explicitly addressed there. copied it out in another thread.
So not "supposedly" it doesn’t matter. But it doesn’t matter.

It is a topic in the council therefore, also here in our town from time to time, because who sits there? Our local tax consultant, a salesperson from a machinery manufacturing company, a managing director of a timber construction company, the local village doctor...etc. Unfortunately, they themselves have too little knowledge, where would it come from otherwise.

Edith copies the aforementioned here once again:
“Widely misunderstood is the requirement to fit in according to § 34 para. 1 sentence 1 of the Federal Building Code, often interpreted as a project must fit into its immediate surroundings in every respect. Projects are partly rejected with the argument that they do not fit in design-wise into their immediate surroundings (for example because the project has a flat roof instead of a pitched roof). This can be countered with a look at the law, that roof shapes or other design features are not covered by the requirement to fit in, because they neither affect the type or extent of the structural use, nor the construction method or the buildable plot area.”

The inactivity of and @kahoo harms the forum

Unfortunately very much, yes...!

Unfortunately no longer active here, @Escroda, an absolute expert and professional on this topic, has explained it to me (unfortunately too late at night) and actually to quite a few others here from time to time.

Yes, but I think you have greatly simplified the explanation now. I mean, he did indeed point out that the roof pitch or roof pitch range can be included in the insertion parameters. Then the flat roof is not really classified as a flat roof, but effectively it is - because its pitch is significantly less than, for example, 30°. Be that as it may - I see the OP here as needing to apply his own neighbor distance (and not in a situation where the building authority would exempt him from it). From my point of view, I do not fear any legally enforceable prevention of the building structure, which in fact does not fit in. I have linked the example of the house from , since I see it as a way of a "reconciliation offer" between the project and the surroundings. If one wanted to proceed stubbornly and dogmatically, I would consider the house as planned to be contestable in court - but also as "no gain" for all parties involved and affected.

Even though I am a big fan of elephants, I believe he has gone too far here to say the least, or rather he has landed in the china shop :) . Why should the long-established residents be bothered by the appearance of a new house? What's wrong with it having a different roof shape? I don't see a bigger aesthetic blunder than an Anstattvilla. Would it be better to put a house in the sugar baker style there or even with baroque onion domes?

I don't see a bigger aesthetic blunder than a substitute villa. Would it be better to put a house in sugarbaker style there or even with baroque onion domes?

No, but both sugarbaker style and onion domes would also be alien here. So far, the only derailment is the nursery diagonally opposite ;-)

Yes, but I think you have greatly oversimplified the explanation now. I mean, he did indeed point out that the roof pitch or the roof pitch range could be included in the insertion parameters. So the flat roof is not classified as a flat roof, but effectively it is – because its pitch is significantly less than, for example, 30°.

Sorry, you know I usually agree with you, but I cannot let this stand here. No, the flat roof is not excluded in a 34er because of its too low pitch, since a 34er does not initially prescribe any pitch like a modern BPL does. The flat roof house is excluded if it is too large, too tall, etc., but not because it has a flat roof. The roof shape is simply not relevant when it comes to integration into the neighborhood.