ᐅ Uncertainties regarding size, planning is otherwise mostly complete.

If you are familiar with Grym’s box, you could describe it as simple architecture. I assume that someone will comment on the oversized dimensions of Baugrym’s house, even if it is not him.

Oh Grym, no, you have no clue about this either. I don’t live in a sterile world of numbers. Unlike you, many others and I have already built here and have more practical experience on this topic. What I find funny is that you try to explain the world to people like Bauexperte—professionals who have been involved in this field for decades. But no, Mr. Number Cruncher and Googler knows better—sure, right.

By the way, I’m convinced that this rural exodus will eventually reverse. Incidentally, my village without infrastructure is experiencing population growth—against every trend.

As so often, it always depends on the situation...

@Grym: Well, that might be the general statistic. I’m also building out in a rural area, but here the population is steadily growing. I’m on the highway within 3 minutes, and supermarkets/shopping centers are just 10 minutes away.

Plus, there are friends, family, and a sense of home... and people just know each other in the village.
Here, you don’t lock your garage or secure your bike.

Bauexperte schrieb:
For simple architecture, this statement "can" be accurate; if the structural engineer always designed and built basic forms with pitched roofs, I am limited in options with him. But when talking about more complex architectures—such as tent roofs, flat roofs, hip roofs with clipped gables (crinkle-hipped roofs), and certainly bungalows—his 5% estimate does not apply.

We are talking about single-family houses, which have simple architecture 99% of the time.

ypg schrieb:
If you know Grym’s box house, you can call it simple architecture. I assume someone will try to provoke over the oversized nature of Grym’s house, even if not by him.

But your house did not have 3 small towers, 2 dormers, 3 bay windows, 4 cantilevers, and a setback, right?

daniels87 schrieb:
Besides, friends, family, and home matter here... and you get to know people in a village setting.

That was also our main reason for wanting to build here, close to the city center and not far outside somewhere...

Here, people don’t lock their garages or secure their bicycles.

I think that’s a myth. From the villages of about 100 inhabitants that I know, it’s usually the case that everyone has a fence and a sign saying “Beware of dog.”

Now, just on the topic of simple versus non-simple architecture, the following examples, easily found on Wikipedia, represent non-simple architectural structures and are aesthetically pleasing to me:
Villa Weigang
Villa Vogesenweg 4
Villa Marie
Villa Stock
(all examples from Dresden-Blasewitz)

But a single-family home built today is constructed differently. And whether there is one small bay window or a single setback added, for me it still counts as simple architecture. I don’t need to pretend otherwise.

When something truly impressive and new is built, it is usually not in residential developments but in exclusive, mostly urban single locations.

@Grym Just because you have this point of view doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct.

Example: Modern residential areas
xxx.Tiergarten-Pforzheim.de

There is, for example, a design review board there and fortunately no houses with knee walls, unlike in many other new developments.

We would have liked to build there ourselves as well, but it would have easily cost 100,000 euros more.

Personally, I don’t like these houses at all. They look modern, okay. But what is considered modern changes quickly, and the buildings appear inflexible. The plots of land are not expensive at all.