On which of these floor plans can we continue to build?

Why exactly do we need a pantry? etc.
Only afterwards did we come across solutions that were appropriate to the needs.

Exactly. Some things are better clarified with (especially pro/con) tables or the like, and the hunt for Pinterest examples doesn’t help much there. There are different opinions about pantry / utility room as to which items belong in which of the two rooms and why. Or only when consciously dealing with the topic do you think, for example, that in the rented apartment the vacuum cleaner is stored in the same cupboard as the pasta and that you could organize that differently in a newly built place.

We still wonder about the first floor plan, how we could have liked it.

Haha, one could start a thread "show your first floor plans and write why you trashed them." That could become a long-running hit similar to the house pictures thread.

Haha, someone could start a thread called "show your first floor plans and write why you threw them in the bin". It could become a similar perennial favorite like the house pictures thread

And it could also be quite helpful with the reasons, if you are still planning yourself.

Of the over 200 posts here, more than 20 belong to you alone.

You celebrate yourself when I misread 10.72 meters.
You throw a rotated floor plan by gerrit83 into the mix here, which I still haven't found to this day.
In return, you constantly put forward the thesis that you can't simply make larger floor plans smaller. I show you how the Flairs live it, and even then you seem only conditionally able to accept it and would rather philosophize about the gift.
I correct you that Pareto is not 90/10 but 80/20. However, it is more important to you whether it is a system or phenomenon than to admit that you are not infallible either.

Here I bring in the "Sender-Receiver Model." Unfortunately, your sent content does not reach me as the receiver. Apparently, we communicate on different levels. Your posts mostly contain great metaphors and overflow with wonderful philosophical content. You and some readers seem to like this level; objectively, it brings me very little.

In our area we would say to someone: if you don't want to contribute to the topic, just keep your mouth shut (and this is the polite way of saying it).

Phew, it took me three days to read through this because it is very interesting. Great suggestions from the forum which address and solve the obvious problems.

Yes, among the many posts there are some objectively good ones. But unfortunately, there is also a lot of useless stuff.

Thus, every inspiration/improvement suggestion leads to reconsidering the whole.

The internet is both a curse and a blessing at the same time.

go to an Excel table. Write down all wishes without reference to any floor plan. Here "a picture is worth a thousand words" is nonsense. Then rank them according to importance without "equally important," i.e., create a ranking.

We do that indeed.
Some things are not included but are also not simple. For example, number of windows vs. usable space. Everyone talks about letting light into the house. At the same time, every window limits the possibility of placing a taller cabinet.
Another example would be the placement of the TV. We have received from the architect two examples of living rooms in principle.
Once the first one in the opening post and then a larger room, practically my first self-drawn one in the opening post. The corner variant has its charm, especially because the TV there would be on a wall (regardless of which side) that does not affect the windows to the garden and west. However, this creates basically two narrower rooms. The large room, on the other hand, has significantly more openness, but then either a larger area must be available for the TV on the garden side, or the couch is placed in front of the window, and one cannot look into the garden from the couch. Apart from that, the distance between couch and TV is already quite large.

In principle, these are listed under "Requirements of the builders" in the first post.

It annoys me that we always say the house should be 10x9 meters. Some recommend rotating the house, and we say no. That means we have made a decision! Instead of searching for solutions for this building body, attempts are still made to rotate the house.
Here I would like to expressly thank again for her ideas.

Why don’t you take the first one now, mirrored? What reasons are there for you not taking it?

In principle, we find that good. Only, there were also (justified) concerns here and elsewhere that made us think. We had also hoped to have it mirrored before the holidays. Now we have an idea with a rather angular staircase. We need to take a closer look at it in peace.

Your fundamental mistake is that you think you want "a ten-by-nine-meter house period." But in fact, you want a "ten-by-nine-meter house comma but have wishes for an eleven-by-eight-meter house. The latter would not fit into your building envelope. It is not ignorance, but logic, that we recommend to you, "take eleven-by-eight and turn it to eight-by-eleven, then it fits inside."

The Nuhr imperative is well known to me (and my fallibility is practically public). I would also not be electable as pope because of my Protestant denomination. It is a pity that you think I caught you in a reading error. That you trust me to enjoy that is the lesser evil.

It’s about something completely different: reading 10.72 m as 10.07 m can happen to anyone. But building 10.72 m as 10.07 m should be avoided: the difference is 65 cm – that corresponds to a cabinet depth with baseboard, handle, and key; or the passage width of a person (not carrying a laundry basket). You don’t bite off such a fat chunk from a floor plan without injury.

That you can enlarge a functioning floor plan painlessly does not mean, conversely, that you can reduce it just as easily. From generous to sufficient, yes – but from sufficient to any smaller hurts. And no “take a little more elsewhere” helps here.

Specifically, you don’t need to look for a longitudinal-format design from gerrit83. I only mentioned gerrit83 in the same breath as criminals because you said the designs of both were basically usable – unfortunately with the little addition, "but mine wife the Ilsebill, she probably doesn’t want what I want." Therefore, I meant that willingness to compromise—even on the seemingly central question of rotating the floor plan—could solve a knot.

That "Pareto" is 90/10 I have never claimed. Rather I meant: if one had understood Pareto—substantially!—one should actually rejoice and celebrate to exhaustion at 90% approximation of the optimum, instead of whining about the "still missing" ten percent and trying to bash your head through the wall, even if the circle cannot be squared.

But I thank you for your comment on Sender / Receiver: you are of course right, if the receiver is deaf, sending makes no sense. Does that prove my patience or my fallibility to have tried anyway? – the philosophers may find out. I then follow Mr. Kerkeling – it is more likely for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Stuyvesant to go to Reval.