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

Basically, I don’t think the exterior view is bad.
...
But I wouldn't call it Bauhaus yet. Cubist with a flat roof fits better.

I’m in.
It has to look good, whether you call it Bauhaus or not.
In addition to the approx. 1m overhang of the upper floor over the ground floor, there is the additional cantilever of the bedroom with the corner window. That was my wish. It creates a dry seating area on the ground floor and a special bedroom.

Color schemes are not final yet. I tend rather towards GF->light brown/light gray and UF->beige/sand colors

Visually it has to please, whether you call it Bauhaus or not.

Also true. It must be approved.

I’m considering adding a door from the utility room to the garage and possibly enlarging the garage further.

:eek: then the meter for the shelf will also be lost and the freezer room, where laundry is also done, has to function as a hallway extension

The house overall must not grow any further,

Well now. Ask your architect about storage space for suitcases and such. He owes you a functional floor plan. If your children or a child is moving out soon anyway, then that belongs in the opening post. It’s annoying to argue with half-knowledge, if this can even be called a discussion here. That’s important! Nevertheless, the way is wrong to designate the garage as the center of the house. The better way is to check the living space size or the bedroom. There are options to make the bedroom smaller first and generate a storage room or utility room from the gained living space. When child 1 moves out, then the child’s room becomes the dressing room, etc. It’s all possible. A gable roof house, for example, would be better positioned there, because at least the attic could still be recognized as storage space—even if vacuum cleaners and such definitely don’t belong there.

I see complications in the approval regarding §34.

I am afraid that the freedom of the §34 area will be misused to implement the following attitude

And: If everyone builds like the surroundings here from the 1930s, then we would hardly have any modern buildings:

Exactly such a lack of decency leads to municipalities preferring to cover densification potentials with development plans as a precaution. Unfortunately, this is not economically feasible for a single building gap. I will not provide any advice on the details of this planning – I am not willing to support such "dear neighbors, pay close attention: we will now show you how modern people build, you victims!"

In advance: This is just my subjective impression. Please don’t take it the wrong way...

You do have quite a generous budget. So why are you building a low-budget villa where many things don’t really fit.

With your budget, I would rather build a nice city villa or a house with staggered shed roofs or something similar.

What I mean is: reconsider your priorities and maybe be open to another (more affordable) building style.

Exactly this lack of decency leads to municipalities preferring to cover potential densification areas with development plans as a precaution. Unfortunately, this is not economically feasible for a single building gap.

I will not contribute any advice on the details of this planning – I am not willing to support such "dear neighbors, pay attention: we’ll now show you how modern people build, you victims!"

We will probably not agree here. Your statement essentially means that development is not desired and that the constraints of the past must also apply to the future. That simply cannot be right.

We ourselves have built a Bauhaus villa in a §34 area. We probably wouldn’t have gotten it approved through §34 alone. It was only possible through the topic of urban development, such as preserving spaces and creating spaces...
So you see that I am fully on your side regarding the architectural style.
Putting something like this into a developed area requires courage and strong nerves. You will get a lot of “headwind” even after a possible approval.

Such an architectural style with projections, etc. is more expensive than standard. If the limit is “already” reached now, you will be surprised what additional costs will still arise during the construction phase...
Ask the architect where the roof drainage runs. You can’t see anything on the plans. I can’t imagine it’s internal. Is the connection in the ground already included?
You have more surface area because of this and have to insulate more, for example, because of the projections.
Have you already budgeted money for the outdoor area, etc.?

The concept should be consistent, meaning also inside. With the space and 5 people, this is only conditionally feasible. On top of that, wherever it even remotely says “Bauhaus style” it immediately gets more expensive. The anniversary only hyped it further. Let’s not even talk about real classics...

I also looked at the floor plans. The garage door should definitely cover the entire width.
I already mentioned controlled residential ventilation.
You want electric shading but no automation. So when the sun comes, you run through the house and press the switch in every room? Here I would at least plan an island solution. Meaning a weather station (depending on the type of shading, a wind guard is necessary anyway), central control with timer and above all also sun position – weather forecast and temperature-controlled.
I would also skip kFW40 immediately. You won’t save the additional costs within your lifetime, and it makes your construction more expensive. Build according to the energy saving ordinance and with today’s building technology kFW55 will result anyway. Unless you need the funding programs, then build directly according to kFW55.

You have a corresponding space requirement for 5 people. I see problems here especially with the available storage space.
We are only two, have a large garage, and still have a storage room on every level.

already mentioned it.
It is always difficult to “take a step back” and reassess the situation.
Especially when you have already mentally committed yourself.
With a simpler cube (without projections), you would get more space without significantly changing costs. It would be structurally simpler, energetically better (smaller surface area of the outer shell)...
Possibly combine it with a very flat shed roof. That certainly makes it easier for approval too.

You have great conditions (large plot with §34, a proper budget) and you are not approaching the matter naively. But there is a reason why they say: 1st house build it for the enemy, 2nd for a friend, and 3rd for yourself ;)

Try to plan the house from inside to outside according to your lifestyle/needs. The outer shell will then come about incidentally. This results in much higher quality of life. What good is a great exterior if it is not practical/suitable inside? Better the other way around.

I hope that despite some of the critical comments here you stay “on board” and keep reporting.
There will always be criticism as soon as you deviate from the standard or have individual needs/ideas.
However, the criticism expressed so far was mainly about budget issues and usability.