Single-family house (2 floors + residential basement + developed attic) approximately 200 sqm - changes

I’ve now sat down again and looked at some of our old drafts. I remembered the one we took to the architect three months ago. (which was then changed to move the staircase to the center so it could be built as a full staircase up to the attic without hitting the sloping roof; also the idea was to build the staircase out of concrete throughout the whole house and separate it more easily with attached walls and doors – although that never really worked out. Now the idea of separating the house is dropped) I’ve adjusted it a bit according to the recommended stair dimensions here (at least I tried to). What came out is attached. The entrance area/wardrobe/windbreak and WC are still quite critical. The wardrobe is actually too small and narrow for me (if shoes hang on one side and clothes on the other) and the small corner would be like a small closet for hanging things. The WC is also borderline small. The rest of the layout is as we originally wanted it. The staircase from the basement is shown. It can be doubled-wound at the bottom step (bottom of the plan) and thus be even longer. Because of that, it might even be possible to push it further back at the top. I imagined the staircase going up not being straight with a winding step on top. So like how the basement staircase is drawn now, but the step is wound all the way to the WC door and at the top it ends straight. The staircase in the attic would be pushed a bit further towards the top of the plan and only the step would be wound normally. Is that understandable? What are the opinions on the floor plan? With this, you can get 4 roughly equal-sized rooms in the basement without any walk-through rooms. Upstairs/attic you basically have all freedoms. If we want the dressing room, the plan can stay as it is and the bedroom does not need access through the study (which doesn’t bother us – by the way that is purely a parents’ study – because someone commented that we have to go through that room to get to the bedroom for homework. No homework is done there.) If we want the study as a walk-through room to the bedroom and do without the dressing room, the floor plan only needs to be mirrored from left to right. In the attic there would be enough space for a second bathroom with a shower (if the attic can be without sloping ceilings, i.e. if the roof is put on). And we also considered the floor plan on the ground floor with a small utility room if the wall to the living room is moved and the technology is put into a small room next to the bathroom. Then we could even do without the basement – which we don’t want though. EDIT: The wall that separates the staircase from the living room is more like a railing about 1m high. That should calm the living room a bit? Although rarely anyone comes up from the basement anyway. A window would also be added to the stairwell. Unfortunately, we never found a good place for a pantry in the plan. But we wouldn’t really miss that much either.

What hasn't come up at all yet, or I overlooked it... you still have the back house. Don't you want to include that in your considerations? Is it supposed to just remain empty for now? That isn't good for the house either, it should at least be heated somewhat. Maybe it can serve as a holiday/guest apartment? Or for large family gatherings, so that you don't have to accommodate a table for 20 people in the main house? Do you need an office?

If you are planning "for later," maybe that a child will live on the property... think about this building – and reduce your "main house" to the now necessary size! ...

Or reconsider an "overall concept," meaning how the existing building can be integrated. The square meters of living space are there and have been paid for (modulo possible conversions/renovations).

I already wrote that on page 3. It's a pity there was no reaction to it, only now, six pages later, "we don't want to." The back house is there after all, instead of squeezing the new house onto the property, one should really think about an ensemble concept. A property with a back house is not run-of-the-mill, so one should also consider unusual approaches.

I already wrote this on page 3. It's a pity that there was no reaction to it, only now, six pages later, "we don’t want to."
The rear building is simply there; instead of trying to cram the new house onto the plot, one should really consider an ensemble concept. A plot with a rear building is not run-of-the-mill, so unusual approaches should also be considered.

Hello Altai. I read your comment on page 3 and I think I also responded to it, but only briefly. So here are a few more words:

We bought the plot almost 2 years ago because we really liked the location and especially the rear building. However, we were very naive and bought it (at a reasonable price) without much checking.
Financially, we were then quickly advised against converting it into living space. Additionally, part of it was once a stable and a fairly high/unhealthy nitrate contamination in the walls is to be expected.
But the most important thing was: it has no basement and offers 2 floors of roughly 4.5*~16m internal dimensions each. There are only 2 non-load-bearing but important stiffening walls in the house that basically divide the building into thirds (the walls are present on both floors).
Without a building permit-required extension, we see no way to convert this rear building into a livable space for a family of five. Especially if the stable (1/3 of the lower floor) is left out as living space. However, we will not get this building permit in the long run! The property law situation is complicated. Two-thirds of the rear wall of the rear building is a party wall with the neighboring house. There are no boundary stones, but according to my measurements, this wall stands exactly on the property line and on two-thirds of it, our roof is only attached to that wall. There is no separate wall! The worst part: this wall has 3 openings/windows. Once bricked within our house and twice above. These were apparently built in during construction, although they were not applied for in the building permit at the time. I also believe this would not have been permissible in 1902/1903. Today it is a no-go and effectively prevents making the building habitable because the fire wall has unauthorized openings. Our goal is to obligate the neighboring property owner to close these. However, it is a real estate company. I believe this would be a lengthy and probably legally clarifiable process. That would likely prevent us from moving in by 2021 at the latest (actually, 2020 was the declared goal). Probably, we would not even have a building permit approved then, and if this is not done by 2020, we could not apply for the Baukindergeld (after all, 36k EUR). In addition, even with an extension (if it is not large), we would run out of storage space and expandable living reserves. The option to build new and cover the roof of the rear building without a permit has therefore arisen. The rear building may certainly play a role in the new build. We think it is worth keeping in mind and find this "courtyard/garden character" between the houses quite attractive.
However, we are very open to other suggestions and ideas!
What is important is that we still get some sunny ground and therefore find it sensible to keep the new build small and push it as far north as possible.

What about cancellation?

This is how the rear building costs without real benefit

Not really an option for us. For 15k we can insulate the roof and cover it nicely and secure it. It has now been completely gutted (I did that last year alongside felling 3 birches of 20m and 5 spruces of 15m). We are already using the garage/stable and the rest can be expansion reserve, storage, small trades,... used at some point). Demolition would actually only cost us money (for demolition and construction debris), 75 sqm of floor space which are shaded all year round and on one third of which we would have to build privacy screens in two directions. What reasons are there for demolition?

, thank you very much for the explanations. That certainly puts the matter in a new light. Why would an extension not be approvable, setting aside the other problems? However, you then don’t need to "hold back" the rear building as a reserve for anything if creating living space there will be difficult anyway. I also understand that the tall neighboring building on the boundary casts a lot of shadow. In this respect, a demolition probably doesn’t bring much benefit either – apart from space for parking spaces or similar (I don’t have the site plan in front of me now).