Plot 1250m², living area 200m², 4-person household

My comment referred to the property.

And mine to the floor plan

There is no development plan.

That is why I am surprised that the OP filled out the questionnaire here so thoroughly, which rather reads like his wishes.

The drawn house is very expensive in relation to what it offers.

[*]20% of the floor area is traffic area without any special charm or benefit = high construction costs for little benefit.
[*]The storage room is not efficiently usable due to its tubular shape = high construction costs for little benefit.
[*]The guest bedroom is very cramped and not designed for the frequency and number of guests.
[*]The path from the living room to the front door is maximized in length - it could be easily changed with a door.
[*]The typical arrangement of dining and living areas in one room uses a lot of square meters in the middle of the room, which do not contribute to livability = high construction costs for little benefit.
[*]The only rooms with usable size on the upper floor are "Child1" and "Office".
[*]The house does not take advantage of the conditions of the plot.

Say goodbye to the "city villa" idea. This building form makes the price per square meter cheaper, but usually wastes square meters and is therefore either more expensive because it is built larger or less usable because more square meters are wasted. In addition, the city villa is better suited for flat plots.

If you build on a slope, a version is conceivable that takes the slope into account. For example, with the entrance on the ground floor, plus hallway, children's room, children's bathroom, and office, cellar at garden level with living kitchen and guest area (the latter possibly low in natural light), and parents' area on the upper floor.

Thank you very much for the many comments! I will try to answer most of the open questions:

The main street is actually relatively quiet. Basically, I like the idea of positioning the house further up quite well.
The garage must be accessed from the side street, I will then draw it in on the new plan with enough distance.

"If you want to build without a basement, a non-square house might be advisable to reduce the amount of filling needed. The house would then remain more on one level."
I find this point particularly interesting! Basically, we planned without a basement for cost reasons, as we would rather invest the money for the basement into a larger living area on the ground floor/upper floor, as this is probably cheaper.

:
- a sliding door is actually planned between the living room and the hallway.
- concerning the arrangement of the dining-living area: the large open space in the center of the room is definitely desired, as we like the open area.

-> Basically, we are not attached to the city villa at all. We ended up there more because of our floor plan. Am I understanding correctly that in your suggested version the footprint of the house becomes smaller, but this is compensated by the partly ground-level basement? What matters most to us is the access from the living-dining area to the garden.

Overall, I gather from the comments that it is probably quite sensible to first create the height profile. I will try to do this over the week and then my partner and I will think about alternative house forms.

that it is probably quite sensible to first create the elevation profile

That's right. According to the picture, the property—probably taken from the brother's house—looks "flat" if the slanted houses on the right edge of the picture were not contradicting that. So mathematically it is probably "flat," but not in the common sense of "horizontally flat." The hillside location is therefore probably uniform, but the absolute values play a significant role. Placed parallel to the "tilt axis" of the hillside, the house axis would thus cause the smallest height difference at the "gable sides" if the floor plan were elongated. Surveyor would certainly not be a suitable profession for you, as far as I can deduce from your talent as a photo reporter.

Planning with a slope is always sensible. Every excavator bucket costs Not only under the house, but also in the outdoor area with dimensions in the floor plan one could say more

Good morning everyone,

As discussed, here is first the update on the elevation profile of the plot. For simplicity, I have attached the picture of the plot and the site plan again; the site plan is oriented north, the building plot is only 74, not the one marked in red. Please ignore the drawn house+garage, it is not to scale.

Regarding the elevation profile: The lowest point is in the far southeast, marked as 0 here, all other values are the elevation differences relative to this zero point. The northeastern line (from 42cm to 287cm) slopes linearly. Hopefully, you can make use of this :)

The main question would be which house shape best takes into account the slight slope. In the previous floor plan designs, we have always remained almost square and would appreciate new input. Lastly, I have attached a picture of the elevation profile with the preferred and to-scale orientation of house+garage, as this view direction offers the nicest outlook into the garden/valley.

Many thanks in advance!