This planning is terribly bad

... doesn't have to be. We now have 5.5 sqm for toilet, sink (on a large wooden board) and oval tub (end terrace house). Now a nice tub should make up the wellness area, but we definitely don't need more bathroom furniture. 10 sqm results here, with knee wall of 130, in my opinion a generous space. I don't like large bathrooms where either everything is made complicated with installation walls or sanitary objects stuck to the walls and corners and cold space in between. Quality of life is not determined by size! :-)

With small changes - for example, more bands of light (remember that at least one should be electrically operable) below the ridge, adjusting the windows in the front area to the overall architecture - the house appears visually (in the direct front view) more pleasing to the eye of the observer. I know that many sales colleagues argue that a builder "lives" more inside the house than outside in front of it; but in my experience, this comparison is flawed. The appearance is also a decisive purchase criterion and quite often a lasting point of discussion after moving in.

We have now planned 3 window bands in the ridge. The windows at the front were designed more attractively by the architect than I had placed them (larger, identical). One window (the top, central one) will be removed entirely, as a window band illuminates the utility room. Above, two walls will be shifted so that the walls around the hallway with stairs form a square (coincidence). This, however, benefits the rooms upstairs. The staircase finds its starting point in the living area and is only turned 1/4 at the top.

How cool is that??? A note that my first post here was moved. I'll bump it up... have been living in the house for 5 years now and still in love, but to be fair...: Feuer frei :D

Now it's actually interesting - I'll take a look at what you planned and built back then. Interesting. I also found the "criticism" or rather the comment that some consider the house too big for 2 people quite intriguing. I can certainly expect criticism when I post our floor plan.... (which, as of today, will be even bigger). I like your room sizes, even the living room is relatively small - but of course it depends on the furnishings (as is actually the case in every room: what matters is always what will be placed inside). The roof design is certainly an acquired taste - I probably would have made the roof a bit flatter. However, I have never really liked steeper roofs. Regarding criticism of the floor plan by an architect: I have already seen clearly worse, not to say mostly worse designs by architects. The floor plans show that you have dealt with the required areas and the rooms. Many architects don't do that - or not with the eyes and requirements of the builders. Overall, I think it's a successful house with sensible space design.

Thank you, unfortunately I did not receive any instructions regarding the layout back then. So, for example, we have a problem with the office at the entrance: a space for a dresser was planned, but the door was actually placed in the middle, so I have 34 cm on each side. That is not nice.
The roof would actually be flattened by about 2 degrees or so, but still has this appearance. Somehow it looks different at the top for us.
The living room is relatively large. I would even give up half a meter now in favor of the office.

Yes - this obsession with symmetry is very pronounced in some people: I just had to object to it in our design (it was about the front door - but actually the same problem). It has to be on the left if, for example, you have a wardrobe on the right or vice versa. Everything in the middle is suboptimal in many cases. And the usefulness of spaces is actually only realized in use. Since this will be my third house, I hope to extend the learning curve from the first to the second house to the third one now. And then there is the forum (with you): There will definitely be (constructive) criticism raining down...….