Your wishes for a development plan

But €2000 on a construction sum of €500,000 is ridiculous. I would have preferred to freely choose my construction company.

Up to this point, the two thousand euros wouldn't have been worth it to me, on the other hand, for the same quality, just having a different contractor on the invoice. Only later

In that case, one could have only started a year later, and that alone would have amounted to over €15,000 in rent for our friends.

does the story become an argument. But is it really the case with three separate construction instances of four semi-detached houses that there are significant differences in start times? – In the early phase of the Goalkeeper thread, I had more the impression that this somehow had to do with (typically male kindergarten) "territorial behavior," rather than seeing it as a "defeat" that people agreed with neighbors to use common construction companies. And that, on the other hand, if this is not fought out on the garden fence level, but "comes from above" (= municipal requirement or developer binding), it is no problem to accept peacefully not to insist on choosing a different contractor than the neighbor. And, also at the risk (certainly realized in this case) of repeating myself: I consider the joint planner (and construction manager) as the central point for defusing the fuse on the double or terraced house bomb, the awarding can then certainly be made to different executors—even mixed stone/wood and with basement/without basement or turnkey/shell house. Apart from that, given equal seriousness and competence, GU Meier, GU Müller, and GU Schulze are as alike as two peas in a pod. Sorry, but this is the "work level"; here we are basically talking in an industrial-business sense about interchangeable caseworkers. This way of thinking should not really be unfamiliar to today's Excel-decision-making building owners—but the archaic "not drinking the same beer as the Unterhachingers at age sixty" must be so deeply ingrained that it must be held up high. "Volume discounts" were never in my mind; that is naive layman thinking—such a thing does not exist at a batch size of "2," or only in a symbolic amount or with peanuts like the crane area application to the public order office.

Up to this point, the two thousand wouldn't have been worth it to me, but on the other hand, not just to have a different contractor on the invoice with the same quality. Only in the

Uh yes, for example because general contractor A is 15k cheaper than general contractor B, because GC A employs subcontractors from cheaper neighboring countries, pressures his suppliers, pays his workers worse, doesn't respond to defects for weeks, and that is precisely the most important question because POSSIBLY?? the quality is worse.
We thought about it for a long time (and for us, it was only about a shell construction) and I can very well understand if someone says, 15k is a lot of money for me or I am so social and pay 15k more and still hope for possibly better quality.

But I probably don't quite understand what you mean by planner/site manager, that's why we're talking past each other.
If someone wants a solid house and the other absolutely wants a wooden house, then I automatically have 2 construction companies and therefore 2 site managers, right?

Uh yes, for example because general contractor A is 15k cheaper than general contractor B, because GC A employs subcontractors from cheaper neighboring countries,

A few lines later you could have read:

Apart from that - with the same seriousness and competence - GC Meier, GC Müller and GC Schulze are as alike as two peas in a pod.

.

But probably I don’t fully understand what you mean by planner/site manager, that’s why we are talking past each other. If one wants a solid house and the other definitely a wooden house, then I automatically have 2 construction companies and therefore 2 site managers, right?

I generally recommend choosing a freelance architect as a planner impartial to the client in case of doubt and entrusting the development of detailed plans as well as the supervision of their execution to the same person who also prepared the submission plans. A "prefabricated house manufacturer" is nothing more than a (timber frame panel) general contractor, just as a "building contractor" is a (masonry) general contractor. Many GCs have project managers whom they also call "site managers," but they have a completely different role than a client-impartial site manager (such as a freelance architect or a construction monitoring expert). If duplex homeowner Left wants a "solid" house and duplex homeowner Right a "prefab" house, then one common planner can (and in my opinion should, because a duplex consists of two halves and not two wholes) assign the "left half" to a mason and the "right half" (or possibly only their "shell structures") to a timber builder and be the common client’s representative overseeing the execution for both homeowners.

I would definitely designate a fairly central spot as a parking lot for carsharing and other-things-sharing (for us: bicycles and trailers for cars upon request) even in rural areas.
Even if it is used little in rural areas now. Without such an offer, it will never be used. Somehow, you have to start. And such things are gladly given a top-notch location.

Parking spaces may well be reduced as far as I'm concerned.

Carsharing is usually considered right from the start in new housing developments (with rental apartments) in more urban catchment areas. That is okay. In contrast to shared parking spaces or other attempts motivated by ideology to try to re-educate people instead of promoting good solutions. Trailers etc. can be rented anywhere; no need for subsidized solutions for the frugal economics.. ;)

I would find reasonable follow-up supply options more important. That actually reduces car trips.

I haven't forgotten this, but it will still take some time until we are ready to negotiate about it in the town, I will give feedback when something has changed.

It would be important to me not to prescribe anything that ultimately wastes money senselessly. My favorite example is the retention cistern. I would have built with a normal cistern anyway, now I have to bury an additional 3.5cbm of space that might be used once every three years. An exemption from the retention cistern through a sufficiently large usable cistern would be more sensible. Another point is the roofing of ancillary buildings. It is often required that they be roofed the same way as the main building or be greened. This effectively makes the simple self-built carport illegal. Red roofing felt/trapezoidal sheet on the carport also matches red tiles on the house and in the end, most people solve it this way anyway. The development plan should also adapt to the surroundings for which it applies instead of simply copying from the model development plan. In a 20-plot development area on the edge of a village, I don't want to read that traffic flow (of 2 cars per hour) must be maintained or that green roofs make the area seem so beautifully natural when right next door the field begins. Where possible, the city should also do without sidewalks when developing areas. Apart from the fact that "shared spaces" are currently fashionable, a residential area should generally be so traffic-calmed that pedestrians can also walk on the street. Forced happiness schemes like car-free districts and communal underground garages should be avoided. Those who seriously want reduced traffic must create good alternatives to the car, e.g., proper bike paths to places where people actually want to go. However, that goes a bit beyond the scope of a new development area.