Single-family house with barrier-free granny flat on the ground floor

The ground floor of the builders can easily be shortened to 10*7m. That's possible even with a terraced house. Then the budget fits. It also helps if you move the upper floor onto the ground floor of the builders.

I had to look twice, but you are right! Simple in thought and construction often fits better than clinging to the extension.

A garage should not be omitted due to the slight height difference and lack of a basement; at least the foundation and floor slab should be laid during the construction phase. Connections for electrical and high-voltage power (e-car) can be taken into account. It will be more expensive afterward. The same applies to the roof conversion. Living in a finished house is easier to tolerate than when both the inside and outside are still construction sites, especially since the overall costs are considerable.

Positioning the washing machine/dryer stacked on top of each other on the first floor next to the sink can make everyday life easier. Carrying laundry for four people up and down can become tiresome over time.

There are many builders who only realize during the construction phase that the budget will not suffice due to cost increases (sometimes higher magnitudes). This can work with possible additional financing or become a nightmare.

Chapeau that you are considering your parents' "later years" and want to "live together" with them!

The roof terrace is now off the table.

It can't be removed with this design because the living room is underneath. Just skipping the tiling saves a laughably small amount here, it's not worth it. Such a significant intervention in the planning must be done in the preliminary draft, not so late. From the start, I would have avoided the awkward concept of the staggered floor openings. In my opinion, you took the wrong turn by not handling the granny flat within a joint spatial program; as a result, an extension conceptually emerged. Moving the upper floors above was not an elegant solution but merely an apparent one. Intended as a reshuffle, it created a dilemma. For the relaunch, make the adjoining room two-part: introductions at the bottom only, and the technology can even go into the roof apex. In the studio, only the Märklin railway runs anyway.

My impression is: this detour proves to be a mistake in considering a contractor's planning sufficient, where a free architectural planning would have been required in the double sense of the word.

It also helps if you shift the upper floor onto the ground floor of the client.

Just for understanding, how does this affect the costs?

Simply thought and built often fits better than clinging to the extension.

Even with 10x7m on the ground floor of the main apartment, there remains an extension. Therefore, I do not understand your statement.

It can’t be removed with this design because the living room is underneath. Such a significant intervention in planning must be done in the preliminary draft, not so late.

We are in the preliminary draft, so the roof terrace can go. I only threw it into the room and the architect implemented it. In fact, I don’t need one and will plan without it.

I would have dropped the skewed concept of the shifted floor division from the start.

Would you like to explain why?

In my opinion, you took the wrong turn by not handling the granny flat within a joint room program; that’s how an extension conceptually arose.

What does a joint room program mean to you? How would it have looked without an extension?

For the relaunch, make the adjoining room two-part: below only the introductions, and the technology can even go into the roof peak. The studio only runs the Märklin railway anyway.

We will actually do that. The architect has just not yet considered it because he implemented our changes shortly before his vacation. Unfortunately, the heat pump and hot water storage with a required space of 3x1.9m (specification from the local heating network) MUST go into the ground floor. The controlled residential ventilation definitely goes into the upper floor. Other technology like inverters and power storage maybe as well? No idea what can go into the attic.

My impression is: with this detour, it backfires to have considered a contractor’s planning sufficient where a free architect’s planning in the double sense would have been appropriate.

As said, we are in the preliminary draft and are asking here for feedback. You don’t find the draft successful but do not offer improvement suggestions (exception: technology in the upper floor). That is okay for me as well.

As said, we are in the preliminary draft stage and are asking for feedback here.

You do get that too!

You don’t find the draft successful, but give no suggestions for improvement

No one here is obliged to make suggestions for improvement. If a draft is truly awful and amateurish here in the forum (not referring to yours now), then people mention the fiascos, but they do not have to and cannot give improvements when you have to start all over again.

Even with 10x7m on the ground floor of the main apartment, there remains an extension. Therefore, I do not understand your statement.

No, there is no extension remaining, because you should drastically reduce, meaning budget. So if you cannot understand statements, it is not necessarily due to us, who have been dealing with house planning for years.

As I said, we are in the preliminary draft stage and are asking for feedback here. You don’t find the draft successful but don’t provide any improvement suggestions (exception: technology on the upper floor). That’s okay with me too.

I do not find it okay to give precise indications and then be told that I provide no improvement suggestions. Please do not read my post less attentively than I have read your entire thread up to this point. And you may be in the "we don’t like it conclusively yet" stage, but what you show here is clearly no longer a preliminary draft. Unfortunately, it is not even that in terms of craftsmanship, but in terms of the graphical differentiation it is already clearly too far for a preliminary draft. Unfortunately, that means a waste of time and money and strengthens my well-founded suspicion that the "architect" is one with quotation marks (aka draftsman or even building draftsman).

Even with 10x7m on the ground floor of the main apartment, an extension remains. Therefore, I do not understand your statement.

Just for understanding, how does that affect the costs?

The reduction of the main apartment alone would not make the extension obsolete. A simpler building structure (with integration of the granny flat) would have a significant effect on construction costs by reducing effort and thus costs.

What does a shared room program mean to you? How was it supposed to look without an extension?

Would you like to explain why?

A shared room program primarily means taking into account the needs of the user groups parent-child family and tenant parents in a joint needs assessment for the room program. This is the basis for an economical building design (service phase 2), even though, according to my approach, that does not necessarily avoid/exclude a larger ground floor compared to the upper floors. The reason for the strategy to first accomplish a balanced calculation of space requirements before the graphical treatment is simply the economy of planning effort. This has been neglected here (resulting in an extension) and subsequently (with the shift of the Z-tower) unsuccessfully attempted to be remedied. Hence also (among other things) my clear advice for a relaunch (which consistently implies refraining from tinkering with the shown design).

Unfortunately, the heat pump and hot water tank with a space requirement of 3x1.9m (requirement from the local heating network) MUST be in the ground floor. The controlled residential ventilation definitely goes on the upper floor. Other technology such as inverters and battery storage possibly as well?

Only the house connections must go into the ground floor. Stricter requirements could not have any legal basis known to me; technically, they would be unfounded and thus excessive and inadmissible.