Small house on large towel plot

Why on earth do you need an expensive balcony when you have such a large plot of land??

Floors basement + ground floor + upper floor

It is clearly a money issue.

We will hardly reuse any furniture.

True. A larger open plan would be better, but also more expensive.

Find the mistake!

This is no longer a preliminary draft.

In my eyes, this is a totally misguided plan! They are planning a basement of about 80 sqm for a measly technical room plus laundry room. Maybe another storage room, oh yes: I just read about hobbies too. For that, you can hardly move around in the living/dining area because it's so cramped there.
- The storage room is missing on the ground floor, where you can quickly access things.
I have nothing against small houses if they are intelligently planned. But to come with costs, talk about basement and new furniture, I lack understanding for that.
- The dining table is 180 x 90.. enough for 4.
- Currently, the terrace door is not passable. If the table is pushed away from it, you can't get past the chimney anymore. With chairs at the head side, one already brushes against the chimney, the other sticks to the window. You can't get through then either, so no bathroom break while sitting together at the table.
- The kitchen is not ergonomic.
- The half-landing staircase is a space eater and belongs in office buildings or houses over 160, 170 sqm.
- The chimney is not planned to be hidden, you practically walk into the chimney. I've already said something about the impossible connection of the stove. That doesn't work.
- A stove itself must keep distance from the wall.
- The sofa may be 3 meters wide, but it faces away from the nice plot.
- The depth of the guest room is deceiving: 3.58 sqm, furnished with bed and wardrobe, leaves a walkway of max 73 cm between both.
- The hallway with just under 2.80 m is way too wide, 2 meters is enough (for many even 1.40, but I respect the wish for width if it was cramped before). But 2.80 is definitely too much. The space is missing elsewhere.
- The shower on the ground floor is 140 x 80.. means with tiles on plastered walls just under 75 cm width.
- Window there does not allow a mirror above the washbasin. If you build the pre-wall with a built-in cistern of 15 cm, the door won't open. Or you take a small hand basin, then the visitor will just stand in the shower overnight to brush their teeth.

- To save costs, way too many windows are planned. The distribution itself also disturbs good furnishing.
- Sauna window not possible due to lintel.
- A window in the shower is "unreasonable."
- The children's room only has one wall where a wardrobe can stand. Floor dimensions of 13,xy make roughly 10 sqm.

I reread the original post..

When we are not sleeping, we primarily live on the ground floor, so this has priority in the planning for us.

I don't see that at all.

Light is important to us in the living area (kitchen and living room),

I don't see that either. These distributed windows have walls in between. That hinders the flow of light.

To the northeast, we have more than 50 meters view into the greenery.

And why don't you use that?

The basement is a 95% must, because numerous space- and tool-intensive hobbies can hardly be done sensibly otherwise.

You have a plot over 2000 sqm! A shed for tools offers more potential than an underground floor, which can only be accessed by stairs.

- you cannot do without: light

So.. I don't want to diss here by any means, but open your eyes a bit to what has actually been planned here. To me, this is a beginner's draft that includes so many mistakes that I can only say: start again! A general contractor will build it to you exactly like this without consultation – and you will wish you had done it differently.
By the way, almost 90% of the plots here are about 20 meters wide, and I know so many functional and light-flooded houses that are not even big.

It is clearly a matter of money. If the budget allows, gladly. But a central ventilation system also requires maintenance.

Of course, everything must be paid for, no question; a controlled residential ventilation system does not require much maintenance.
You are, for example, planning a really expensive basement for hobbies, an unnecessary fireplace, an indoor sauna, etc. For me, the interior of the house, i.e. the living comfort, would have absolute priority (see, for example, air conditioning, controlled residential ventilation...) and in a nowadays absolutely airtight house, a controlled residential ventilation system would also be part of that, unless I had a completely open living concept and lived alone or as a couple. I doubt that you will adequately ventilate this house with more residents, and then problems threaten.
Other things can be retrofitted if the money is available; for example, a carport instead of a garage or none at all, if the budget is too tight to properly equip the interior of the house. See here:

The basement is cost-intensive.

We will hardly reuse furniture. The drawn-in furniture has realistic dimensions. But whether it will actually be placed that way is still under discussion.

Exactly that, namely how you want to sit/live, should be clarified beforehand, because that has many effects, e.g., on windows, electrics, sockets, spatial feeling, and much more. Only then can you design a room well for yourselves.

The dining area is tight, that's true. But so far, I haven't come up with a better variant. The door at the dining table is a sliding door, which the program depicts incorrectly. As already said, it currently bothers us a lot that we can't work together as two or three people in the kitchen. Hence the larger kitchen.

It doesn't fit 4 or even 8 dining places at all; one chair is almost stuck to the sofa. I would also recommend that you use a simple drawing on graph paper for planning instead of struggling with the limitations of a program; this old-school method has many advantages.
I understand a larger kitchen, but on the other hand, eating and living areas then turn out too small or neglected in order to use them comfortably. In the living room, you can't even sit opposite each other and talk...

True. A larger open space would be better but also more expensive.
The hallway on the ground floor is so wide because our current hallway is too narrow. Did I overcompensate here?
Since there is enough space in the hallway but not in the open space, I found the door logical.

Of course, more space is more expensive, but an unsuitable house is then very expensive and no fun. Surely, you also overdo it in places that previously bothered you; in summer, a layman often plans a house differently than when it is bitterly cold outside. The hallway is not inherently too large but measured against the boundaries of eating/living, it is then "too" big for a pure utility hallway; the rather unusual door opening direction is then only a consequence of that.

So in the last three years, more than one person has only sat on the sofa (in the currently almost equally sized and almost identically furnished living room) when we had visitors. And then the TV was either off or a console was connected.

That will change, especially the needs of older people will, too, so you should take a close look.

how our daily routine in the house will look like.

Exactly, and this will be different in the future.......
So you are apparently two "older adults" and a 17-year-old. I do not like the floor plan itself because of its dimensions or inappropriate proportions. Added to that is the rather uncommon situation that you will soon be three adults. Should all three then sleep upstairs permanently, or would it be worth considering that the 17-year-old perhaps lives on the ground floor with an en-suite bathroom?
I would need more privacy inside the house, which I currently do not see.
Your hint about the budget is absolutely correct, but I read about all sorts of firmly planned "frivolities" that you do not necessarily need for living. Before omitting must-haves, you should first eliminate or at least postpone the nice-to-haves.
An indoor sauna is nice but can also be done wonderfully outside for a fraction of the money; you have the plot for that.
A fireplace is also nice but, if you do not heat with it, at first only unnecessarily expensive, and at least questionable together with underfloor heating. I lived in my house for 30 years and had neither a carport nor garage... so it works if the money is not there.
My suggestion: Find a really clever floor plan (there are many online) that also offers good living quality for your "17-55" situation in the future. Equip the house technically well (high insulation quality, controlled residential ventilation, gladly air conditioning) and only then see if you still have money for an indoor sauna, fireplace, carport, etc.
Or: cancel the really expensive basement and build a really generous garden house at ground level (you have the area, and you don't have to climb stairs when older).
For me, your order is wrong because I have the feeling that you definitely plan "frivolities" but want to omit important must-haves (privacy, living space...). But the focus should be on the LIVING house.
My tip: Back to square one....

A preliminary draft is an important planning step and cannot be replaced by any large number—even an excessive number—of drafts.

No one disputed that either. I don’t know how it was or is with others, but it helped me a lot to recognize and distinguish dreams, wishes, and necessities.

Paint is no good for preliminary drafts; a good preliminary draft is not clicked, but scribbled.

And I would have assumed a good preliminary draft convinces through good spatial arrangement, regardless of the medium on which it was created.
A change on a Paint-clicked draft is faster than on a scribbled one, and you can revert to an earlier version anytime, provided it was saved. What was again the advantage of scribbled?

Do you mean an "architect" aka draftsman? – an interior wall not yet dimensioned should better be generally 2 dm thick than specifically 24 cm thick. The ignorance of octameters is not problematic because of work inefficiency caused by the saw pause but because it causes a domino effect leading to shoddy joints instead of clean butt joints and, through rhythm disturbances, affects the overlap dimension.

I would not have expected a 4cm difference in wall thickness to be so important in a draft.
With 60x42cm blocks, clean joints are easy to achieve. I managed that myself even with 50x36cm blocks.

Aerated concrete is used starting with the caliber 425 only from EH40; and a Euro-module runner length belongs in industrial construction.

Aha

A cozy fireplace runs on a Raspberry, without a chimney. As for making it water-bearing in a useful and beautiful way, I, as a merchant (just over 56), will say nothing.

Whoever finds a display cozy should use it. I find fireplaces beautiful, thus fireplace.
On my property stand dozens of solid cubic meters of wood that have to be felled for construction. With that, I can feed a fireplace for years. Or I let the wood rot because some people don’t like fireplaces.
Water-bearing operation spreads or even buffers the heat emission of a fireplace. Cheap polemics won’t change that either.

The cost intensity of a basement does not have to be suspected but can be calculated frighteningly accurately with the help of the 11ant basement rule. However, that belongs clarified before you start drawing anyway.

The assumption referred to the budget problem, not that a basement is expensive. Was that unclear?
Why a basement is explained in the opening post.

You speak my mind

For me, the interior of the house, meaning the living comfort, has absolute priority (see e.g. air conditioning, controlled residential ventilation...)

Living comfort for me means space. Space so that all individuals living in the house can develop individually and do not disturb each other by constantly saying "can I get through?" Here, no one can even watch TV undisturbed while others drink coffee.

but an unsuitable house is then very expensive and no fun.

Exactly: it’s simply no fun to live here.

Of course, more space is more expensive

Not if you distribute it appropriately where it is needed.
The focus of the OP is kitchen, hallway, and basement (which is unknown here, by the way).

I would need more privacy inside the house and I currently don’t see that.

That’s right.
And you say it: there should be enough space on the property for hobbies, but it is pressed into the house – and on the wrong levels at that.

And I would have supposed a good preliminary design convinces by good room layout,

But you don’t have that. You don’t have a good room layout!

I would not have expected that a 4cm wall thickness difference is so important in a design.

It isn’t in an amateur design either. But don’t expect a cheap planner to straighten out your flawed design.

I like fireplaces, so a fireplace.

Then plan a fireplace that is also used and usable!

Whoever finds a display cozy should use it. I like fireplaces, therefore a fireplace.

Of course you can decide it that way, but have you ever had a fireplace in an absolutely airtight, well-insulated house with underfloor heating at the same time? Simply saying "I want" a fireplace or something similar often makes little sense if you don't also consider the interaction and clarify whether it fits by itself. In this case, it would also include that such a small room will particularly quickly become overheated.

There are tons of solid cubic meters of wood on my property that need to be felled for construction. I can feed a fireplace for years with that. Or I let the wood rot because some people don’t like fireplaces.

...and why do you then install another expensive heating system and don’t use this free and furthermore by you also beloved option with wood & fireplace? A masonry heater or good canal stove plus an auxiliary heating (air conditioning and/or infrared) would be an option and suddenly there are many thousands left for other gadgets or for the so far omitted controlled residential ventilation.

because some people don’t like fireplaces.

um... I even particularly like fireplaces and use them well, namely for heating.

....and why do you then install another, expensive heating system and not use this free and also by you loved option with wood & fireplace? A basic stove or good rabbit stove plus an additional heater (air conditioning and/or infrared) would be an option and suddenly there are again several thousand euros left for other gadgets or for the hitherto cancelled controlled residential ventilation.

I don’t want to say much about the floor plans, others here have more expertise on that. However, regarding the topic of a fireplace stove in a fully insulated house + heat pump, I can contribute my €0.05 from personal experience:

In our case, the fireplace stove was also a fixed decision. We love the cozy warmth of a wood fire!
What we underestimated: such a heat pump with underfloor heating only runs efficiently if it runs continuously – in other words, the temperature in the house is permanently in the comfort range. If we now heat the stove, we have over 27°C in the living room within a very short time. Also nice sometimes, but of course no permanent condition that is pleasant... As a result, we hardly use the fireplace stove in winter.
However, it is great during the transitional period. I switched off the heat pump after Carnival and heated the fireplace as needed (southern Bavaria – it can be quite chilly at that time). If we have burned 0.5 cords during the entire heating period, that is an overestimate.

When I read that you want to add a water-bearing system with buffer storage IN ADDITION to the heat pump, I can only advise against it (see also ’s post). That would be pointless overkill because you won’t burn all that beautiful wood without having sauna-like temperatures permanently in the house. (however, of course, you could save the costs for the sauna then... semicolon, colon, bracket).

Moreover, these systems – from what you read – don’t even run that smoothly in combination with heat pumps, etc.

As I said – just a well-meant hint from my own experience. I don’t regret the decision for the fireplace stove for a moment, but I would reconsider the water-bearing topic in your place or, as suggested by Arauki, change the heating concept to wood as the primary energy source.