You mean that when we are with the architect, we should initially not show any drafts and first let the architect's creativity run free because otherwise he might be too biased?
You mean, when we are with the architect, initially not to show any drafts and first let the architect's creativity run free because otherwise he might be too biased?
The advantage of an architect over a "architect" (aka GU lackey) is finally paid with a separately stated fee (even if this is rarely more expensive than waiving detailed planning) - therefore one should not "give away" this advantage through such stupid little own goals like anchoring effect / priming. So: if the architect is an architect, then avoid this mistake; if, on the other hand, he is a "architect", then there is usually no creativity left to kill. [Unfortunately, the "Bold" text formatting option has been missing here for some time - so please hallucinate that I had written the quotation marks around "architect" in bold]
You mean, when we are with the architect, initially not to show any drafts and first let the architect's creativity run free because otherwise he might be too biased?
Then you have the mega long driveway again.
Such a border development is also not very tasteful.
Yes, you would have a driveway about 3 m longer. However, it could be narrower because the house is further towards the top of the plan and thus the part of the driveway between the house and the garage is eliminated.
And you have more in front of the property, a larger contiguous garden. So with Plan D, the space between the workshop and the neighbor is dead space, which besides being a junk corner, perhaps for parking bikes (if there will be any), cannot be used properly.
Everything feels quite fragmented this way.
For A,B,C I see difficulties with the approval
In my opinion, D has a contiguous garden, just not strictly oriented in one direction.
As long as you don't want to play golf, it can be divided into nice areas at D