Single-family house, 3 children's rooms, 2 bathrooms, approximately 10.5x10.5 m²

How do you mean? The house is basically square. Or the garage on the other side?

Ok, I thought it was a bit wider than deep.

The bay window is quite important. What would you do better/differently here?

Well, I don’t find it particularly successful. For the table it is very tight – you feel cramped. For the expensive money, you now have 2 areas that are not enough for the table: the bay window is too narrow and the area between the kitchen and living room is as well. It would be better to have one large area where you have space and freedom to move around. Besides, child 2 doesn’t seem to be the highlight. How wide is the room? I usually don’t plan a children’s room under 2.75m or try to avoid it. Is there still a stove in the room? Don’t you think that’s nonsense? Or is the dining area so huge? The bedroom is large in comparison. Well, I grant you that, but do you need that? Wouldn’t it be better if the children had more space? Do you also have views? I still don’t really understand the roof cutout.

The staircase measures 176cm x 313.5cm The floor height (raw dimension) is 256cm. Thanks for the inputs Manuel

That will be the room height. Then I guess the floor height is about 285cm. Well, with 15 risers quite athletic but doable. What’s that thing behind the stair entrance? A closet? Where does the outside stair lead? Is it necessary? If yes, wouldn’t it be better the other way around? Overall, I find it quite okay. The areas are just not perfectly distributed. I would keep fiddling with it until it’s optimal. Like TV distance. Children’s room width, space for dining table, space for the car, unnecessary corner in the hallway.

The more I look at the open space, the more I dislike it. It is already so unplanned in the entrance area with half of the kitchen area. I would at least, if it is supposed to stay like this somehow, put the kitchen in the bay window, that is, the conservatory, and make the dining area the central hub of the house.

Due to the maximum ridge height and the minimum pitch of 32°, the knee wall results.

Exactly, and this immediately brings to mind for the more experienced zoning plan reader to build a straight-walled upper floor instead of the knee wall 180° attic and to roof it with a pitch either at 22° (analogous to the maximum in PD/ZD) or, for example, 27°.

What could/should one concretely adapt to contemporary taste? [...] Where would you start with reengineering? Floor plan inside? Outside? Everything?

Reengineering always means "completely wipe the slate clean and start anew." This by no means means that everything is bad – rather, in every mere relaunch, the risk is too great that unsatisfactory components survive in the genome of the "new" design. Therefore: radically start from a blank sheet. One should not adapt anything to contemporary taste here at all now, because in my opinion that has already been done precisely and has produced the current mess. I see here a Frankenstein hybrid of a settlement house basement from the oil tank era with an outside staircase and a ground floor like under a towed gable roof of a one-and-a-half storey house from the same time on the one hand, and from the top edge of the bay window upwards there sits a substitute villa upper floor of the recently passed decade; the nonsense is then crammed in by a gable roof for photovoltaics along with an upper floor chopped to a knee wall attic out of slavish obedience to the zoning plan. Whoever wants to bake a cake must have seven things – apparently four and a half suffice to maneuver a small house into a planning dead end. Therefore my advice: don’t fall in love with any randomly not-hungover detail at all, but do everything anew. Reengineering also does not mean eradicating every coincidence with the old plan – what by chance is again as it was before may gladly "remain" (just not that which stayed the same through retention).

I would like to ask the following again: You have 16m plot width with a maximum house width of 11m. You have marked a spiral prefabricated garage with less than 3m width and 7m length as the garage. If the family car actually parks there, I see a complete problem here. Where do bicycles, scooters, tricycles, lawnmowers, and so on for 5 people go? Or are 2 parking spaces planned in front of the house and the garage is exclusively for junk?

Is the garage allowed to be built directly on the street? The rule that there must be at least 5m distance from the street does not seem to apply (in your plan currently 4m). Of course, it could be that the garage must also comply with the building line in your area. I wouldn’t block the west side with the evening sun, so I’d prefer the garage in the northeast. As an option, maybe a double carport directly on the street in the NE corner, with a storage room for bicycles behind the border half of that, and then the house on the property afterward?

Well, I’m not quite sure. The thing is neither fish nor fowl. The narrow living room, the kitchen so lost in the room, the worm-shaped extension in the south, upstairs children’s room 2 so annoyingly narrow, no space for car, bikes & co and all that for 580K???

Okay, the plot is not simple. Actually, it would need to be 2m wider for your wishes. If it were mine, I would bury some of them and build a rectangle.

It would then look like this (north at the top is south):



Possibly I would still shift maximally to the south for a small front garden. Photovoltaics also work with east-west orientation - I just learned that. The children get the south side. Why do you have to look into the garden when sleeping?