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

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you have a nice building authority. Or that your and the architect’s connections get the design approved.

Here, the building authority would already reject such a request at the preliminary building inquiry stage.

Maybe the color concept, which does indeed somewhat resemble a roof, will help.

Replanning to a gable roof should be scheduled.

Regarding the topic of wannabe Bauhaus in a §34 area from the 70s with exclusively pitched roofs so far, I can only say that we got approval without inquiry. So it is not impossible. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

As you can see, I also live in a stylistically similar house. However, I also believe that you should first detach yourself from the exterior and get it functional inside. I consider the dining area very unfortunate, simply too narrow as a permanent passage to the kitchen. Garage as storage space is good and fine, but you cannot store anything sensitive to cold or moisture there. If you build without an attic, you have to put a bit more thought into storage planning. How old are the other two children?

With soon to be three children (although small ones), we have a technical room of 8 sqm, a utility room of 18 sqm, a pantry of 4 sqm, and a cloakroom as a sluice to the garage of about 8 sqm. Additionally, a double garage with a 3x6.4m extension for storing everything that does not necessarily have to go into the house. And without an attic (also because of the flat roof), that is far from too much storage space. In comparison, you only have a freezer room, which will not offer much more storage space besides the appliances. Even if it doesn’t look so nice, I would also separate the small study on the upper floor structurally. If the office then moves into a child's room, even better. At least you gain a small storage room.

It doesn't get any worse. Why so aggressive? - given the surroundings, in my opinion, this already crosses the line from provocation to physical assault.

to plan such a block in a developed settlement

I see it completely differently, the area is enhanced by the house. Some contrast can do the area good.

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

I definitely wouldn’t do that.

I really like the design for its clarity and layout. I would definitely check the arguments of regarding the required practical dimensions; if you intentionally accept a bit of tightness here and there and have a good overview of all storage areas, it will work. I could live well in this house. Building with less storage space means investing more thought. Anyone can build big. ;)

Talk to the neighbors and the building authority. Good luck with this bold project – and let some morning sun into the bedroom.

What exactly is included in €92,000 for "planning"?
That is an exceptionally high amount for the construction shown

I don't find it unusual if the architect also acts as the construction manager. Additionally, there are structural engineering, energy consulting, technical building equipment planning, surveying, geotechnical reports, drainage applications, etc. Even if not all of these are billed according to HOAI, they can certainly amount to 15% of the construction costs. With billable costs of €420,000 (net) here, the architect alone costs about €72,000 at phase III middle. The €92,000 should be sufficient but are not set too high.

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

From my point of view, that would be inappropriately mismatched to the TE's suggestion for this environment.

On the subject of wannabe Bauhaus in a §34 area from the 70s with exclusively gable roofs so far, I can only mention that we got that approved without inquiry.

Do you also have a picture of it, especially showing the integration into the surroundings?

I see it completely differently, the area is enhanced by the house. The area can well tolerate some contrast.

From a discussion culture perspective, it may be quite nice that we sometimes have opposing opinions, I even once had that with . But from a regulatory policy perspective, it remains sensible to integrate a building into its surroundings even in a §34 area. The §34 follows the principle of appropriateness, for legal-economic reasons not to cover a single building gap with a development plan. It is not meant as an invitation to exploit building law loopholes or, as planned here, to feel entitled as a punk to teach the bourgeoisie which architectural diversity they should get used to. Between a solitaire of self-integrating creativity and a punch in the face, I see more than a considerable difference, namely an opposition. Especially an (by self-assessment) avant-garde (as I interpret the TE’s justification) must not violate its environment.

I could live well in this house.

Not only you, in principle there is nothing to object to the house itself, only against its installation as a thorn in this §34 area. Here one should use one’s creativity to find a more integrating solution.

I don't find it unusual when the architect also does construction management. In addition, there are structural engineering, energy consulting, MEP planning, surveying, geotechnical reports, drainage applications, etc. Even if not all of these are billed according to HOAI, that can certainly account for 15% of the construction cost. With chargeable costs of around 420,000 euros (net), the architect alone costs about 72,000 at phase III middle. The 92,000 should be sufficient, but they are not set too high.

I find 45k-52k net appropriate for the construction sum for service phases 1-9.