Prefabricated wooden house provider for single-family homes in Lower Saxony

What you call a cheap trick, in my eyes is completely legal when it comes to a missing window in the entrance area. It's actually an optical method to compensate something and is used everywhere. Something like that creates balance.
Nevertheless, this whole gable is just shifted.

Well, with such a view the planner wants (should) to visualize the real appearance of their house side for the layperson, and without this tree (or other masking) it would in my opinion look shifted. Therefore, as a builder you should first be able to see the reality, because I don’t want to only like the look of my house thanks to a tree of a certain size or to dislike my house without this tree.
The planner certainly had noticed this "shiftedness" themselves, otherwise the tree wouldn’t have been placed there; on the other hand, they should have addressed this concretely with the customer (layperson) and also shown it, at least that is my understanding of fair interaction.

I will use the thing alone and leaning horizontally on the wall with legs. In that respect, the size fits.

Okay, then it fits. I just thought I’d mention it just in case.

Our consideration was that the kitchen sliding door will be closed a few times a week for cooking and is mostly open otherwise. The door to the living room might really be better as a double door. I somehow can’t quite assess yet what is more practical.

I once bought two sliding doors for the kitchen many years ago and they were basically open for 20 years, except maybe 4-5 times. I spent a lot of money on that, which I wouldn’t do today anymore, but instead would rather endure those 4-5 times and spend the saved money on things where I gain lasting comfort. For me that’s one of those points in the house where a high sum accumulates completely incidentally that could have been avoided.

It’s just the question if we really play that much table tennis.

See above, also dispensable here. One of my favorite sayings: "What is often is often and what is rare is rare."
First of all, you don’t have to necessarily build those extra 32 sqm upstairs, but could simply save a lot of money that you will CERTAINLY need elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is just like that that at some point you run out of breath and it’s no longer enough for nice things, even though I would often use and enjoy them, just because I wanted to cover some eventuality (table tennis etc.). Just calculate the costs for the hour(s) of table tennis.
I would simply implement the things that are really important to me in very good and valuable quality and skip less important things altogether. You mention here casually hundreds of thousands of euros for something that does not affect your daily life in the living space. That would never be an option for me.

That will probably not be enough, unfortunately. Assuming €3,600 per sqm, my initially estimated €125k for the basement, and 18% incidental construction costs, I am currently calculating around €900k. A slight shift in the price per sqm between the basement and the house is, of course, possible.

I also consider that realistic. With the €3.6k/sqm you are definitely at the higher-end level for the upgraded finish, which is open upwards. By the way, €15k for the foundation slab is at least underestimated by a factor of 2.

I once bought 2 sliding doors for the kitchen many years ago, and they were practically always open for 20 years, except maybe 4-5 times. I spent a lot of money on that, which I wouldn’t do nowadays, but rather endure those 4-5 times and spend the saved money on things that provide lasting comfort. For me, this is one of those points in the house where a large amount of money accumulates almost unnoticed, which could have been avoided.

I know this from my in-laws as well and can fully endorse it. In modern floor plans, you always see the kitchen. Either you learn to keep it tidy (yes, that’s possible even if you cook there!) or you learn to let things slide.

You casually mention a hundred thousand euros for something that does not affect your daily life in the living space. That would never be an option for me.

Do we know the financial situation of the OP? I have to say, if I had 100k more to spend during my planning back then, I probably would have chosen a basement too. In hindsight, I’m really glad I didn’t and can now afford to put more into bathrooms and especially the kitchen (+electric).

36.5 sounds monolithic to me at first. So no brick veneer. With insulation and an air gap it will get thicker, hence the question. HRB with wooden facade can be done reasonably well. It gets tricky when setback areas are maxed out, and the site coverage ratio is maxed out, then the whole planning is messed up. In Lower Saxony remember the roof overhangs, from 50 cm they count towards the site coverage ratio...

Thank you for the tip about the roof overhang. That was not clear to me. We are at 60 cm. 10 cm more wall thickness for the stone house would be roughly 10 sqm more area. That still works with the current floor plan.

The planner surely noticed this "misalignment" themselves, otherwise the tree wouldn’t have fit there; on the other hand, they should have explicitly addressed this with the client (layperson) and also shown it, at least that’s my understanding of fair cooperation.

That is of course true. Although in this case the "misalignment" is quite obvious even to a non-architect. In the end it was a cost-benefit consideration, whereby I, as a layperson, could not estimate the effort for an adjustment and relied on the architect. Should the house have been completely redesigned after the first draft because of this? Maybe. We did not do that at the time. There are always many trade-off decisions that have to be made. We now have to reflect on that again.

I once splurged on two sliding doors for the kitchen many years ago, and they stood open almost all the time for 20 years, except maybe 4-5 times. I spent a lot of money on something I wouldn’t do today, but rather endure those 4-5 occasions and spend the saved money on things that provide lasting comfort gains. For me, this is one of those points in the house where a considerable sum accumulates almost unnoticed that could have been avoided.

I absolutely see your point. For the kitchen in our case it is a regular comfort gain and, based on the living situations in our previous accommodations, quite predictable.

see above, also dispensable here. One of my favorite sayings: "What happens often, happens often; and what happens rarely, happens rarely." First, you don’t necessarily have to build those extra 32 sqm upstairs but could simply save a lot of money that you WILL CERTAINLY need elsewhere. Unfortunately, the air runs out at some point and there isn’t enough left for nice things, even though I would use and enjoy them often, just because I wanted to cover some contingency (table tennis etc.). Just calculate the cost per table tennis hour. I would just implement the really important things in very good and valuable quality and simply leave out less important things. You casually mention hundreds of thousands of euros for something that doesn’t affect your daily living space. That would never be an option for me.

Point taken here as well. Table tennis was just an example. If I play an hour per week, that costs 48€ per hour over 40 years. All other basement uses aside. We will run through this again.

Do we know the financial situation of the OP? I have to say, if I had had 100k more to spend during my planning back then, I probably would have also decided on a basement. In hindsight, I am really glad I didn’t and can now afford to invest more in bathrooms and especially the kitchen (+electric).

With the mentioned 900k + some buffer, we should be able to make it. Until the day before yesterday, I would have thought that a basement is actually a "no brainer," although I had still assumed 125k for the basement, which minus the floor slab and technical room landed us at 64k additional costs, which corresponds to only 18 sqm of living space.

I have only just now had time to look at the floor plans.
What I don’t like and what might give some food for thought:
- The entrance has no canopy.
- The wardrobe/hallway is somewhat divided into two parts, but you can get used to that.
- The dining table is rather boldly drawn at 1.50 m. The architect should really use 1.80 m; if not, 2.00 m or 2.40 m should be feasible for larger families or when there are many guests for meals.
- Also, the bay window in the dining area is not centered (seen from outside); okay, maybe I’m just a bit of a perfectionist there.
- A sofa is planned in the bay window. Basically, consider who would want to rub their back against the window panes or cold surfaces there.
- Living room: how do you position the TV when furnishing without twisting your neck?
- Little kitchen, little storage space. Sitting like chickens on a perch did not work out as planned back in the 2000s either.
With the seating positions, the main access to the terrace is also obstructed.
- If I read that the doors are closed while cooking, then somehow you don’t really get out onto the terrace?
- The children’s bathroom upstairs has a 73 cm door... there is no space for a light switch next to it, the shower is still 90 cm in rough construction measurement, so realistically 80 cm?
- There is no bathtub.

I don’t want to just criticize: the wardrobes in the children’s rooms are well placed, and the parents’ wardrobe is also adequately sized.
There are now two spare rooms; unfortunately, I don’t recall if [HO] plays any role at all,
Overall, the house is still compact in size, and you don’t want to complain that it might possibly be too small.
Personally, I would actually prefer the open living area to be one meter wider for four people rather than having an extra floor.
But with, for example, a floor area ratio of 0.2, that might become quite tight.