Single-family house (10x8.8 sqm) on 437 sqm plot in Munich

For God’s sake, who ever spoke of enlarging the house? You misunderstood something there. By narrowness, I meant the possibilities on the plot. It’s also a bit convoluted. It would be nice to know the exact dimensions of the building window.

Okay, then that really was a misunderstanding. As mentioned, we still have reserves that we always want to keep in mind. The building dimensions for the house are 10x9m. How it is angled depends on the floor plan of the ground floor/upper floor. It makes sense on the plot for the longer side to run parallel to the street. Since we want the entrance on the right in the east, we would adjust the floor plan accordingly. The exact dimensions of the plot are still outstanding, as said. In the site plan, the largest possible house in the grid is marked in red. We will be a bit "shorter".

But only at a relevant location if you want a south-facing garden at all costs. If the house manufacturer's website weren't so user-unfriendly, I would have already looked for more suitable basic models.

Why shouldn't one necessarily want the garden facing south? It's not really ideal in the north, is it? That way the house would be quite easy to position, namely at the bottom right.

Then we will also prioritize the topic Position Garage accordingly.

You mean to disprioritize

How it is angled depends on the floor plan EG/OG.

Unfortunately, you have "Bauträgerbindung," and I do not trust the manufacturer to have a better boomerang shape for the rear boundary.

Why shouldn't one necessarily want the garden to face south?

Follow the link in post #7.

You unfortunately have "Bauträgerbindung", and I don't trust the manufacturer to do a better boomerang shape for the rear boundary.

To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by "rear boundary" and "better boomerang shape"? Strwif should be able to mirror the sides without any problems, that is, shorten one side and make the other longer while keeping the same/similar room arrangement.

To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by "rear boundary" and "better boomerang shape"?

A boomerang is an Australian throwing weapon, whose shape a floor plan would nestle against the building boundary on the garden side of the property. However, how you intended to achieve its shape by changing a rectangle's length-to-width ratio is not clear to me.

So the house would then be quite easy to position, namely at the very bottom right.

It seems to me you suffer from a lack of imagination. The plot is so small that the house can basically only stand as drawn in the site plan (if you chose this shape and size). Even there, one corner already protrudes impermissibly beyond the building field. With a square, there is a margin of about 1m to the left and more to the right – so basically nothing.
No problem for building. The house just fits in. However, your garden then is only a strip, fragmented around the house. The terrace would practically lie in the nook between the fence fields. Not exactly a showstopper.

Even with the suggestions from #6 by , the 3m line to the north was already clearly exceeded. In my opinion, that’s not possible.

I see 2 possibilities here: The architect adapts your house to the plot in order to have a nice terrace with some green around it. One corner of the house must be cut off for this. It would then look something like this:



If the neighbor to the north is an approachable guy, it might be possible to negotiate a boundary building for the corner. If he builds new, he surely also needs every cent – possibly a matter of money. But the cut-off corner wouldn’t be a drama in my opinion either.