160m2 detached house in timber frame construction on the north slope with basement

That banks sometimes still have difficulties with this doesn’t really surprise me – they often have little or only rudimentary knowledge about construction (even if they continuously grant loans).

But they don’t need knowledge about construction, only about the expected resale value. Today, buyer prejudices are not so dramatic, precisely because _everything_ can be sold at almost any price, but that doesn’t have to remain so. If circumstances change in such a way that follow-up financing is more likely to be problematic (i.e., foreclosure is likely), it will be a buyer’s market again…

If circumstances change like that, ..., it will be a buyer's market again…

Could be, it also somewhat reminds me of the strategy of Telekom shareholders, who also bet for decades on rising prices (above the issue price). Or of everyone who has been waiting for rising interest rates since 2008.

But it could also be that the macroeconomic conditions have simply changed, that generally in society the desire for homeownership has increased, that the aging population is increasingly moving to cities with infrastructure, etc. If in 10 years we are still waiting for rising interest rates, the southern countries are still bankrupt, and then changing crises and looming trade wars still forbid an interest rate hike, we will all be wiser.

Of course that is possible (although in the economy nothing has ever really been permanent), but then the likelihood that the property will have to be liquidated is much lower, namely limited to the risk of divorce or the economic deterioration of the family compared to the current situation. However, if the framework conditions change as many expect, the property will have to be liquidated within the family even under maintained or slightly improved conditions (in case of deterioration, certainly). Or put another way (correlatively, not causally): if the property has to be liquidated, conditions will likely prevail that favor/cause a buyer’s market.

Or put another way (correlatively, not causally): if the property must be liquidated, conditions will likely prevail that favor/cause a buyer's market.

If markets were dominated by participants who can distinguish between Correlatio and Causalitas, "markets" would behave rationally

This thread is dead, long live this thread.

I'll also leave my sketch in the round file - the OP doesn't want to know.

Of course, I am interested.

We don't think the living room would be a real "pass-through room." It would always be the more complicated way between the hallway and the kitchen area if you went through the living room. You just enter from both sides.

Is the basement included in the scope of the house manufacturer's offer here? How does that fit with an admittedly tight budget - wouldn't it be more effective to take another route to Rome?

The basement is included. We are thinking about downsizing the whole thing again.

Even if you only build according to the Energy Saving Ordinance, your house is airtight. Ventilation by hand occurs several times a day. I wonder if you are really with a provider with good equipment.

They like to install everything we want; they just think it is not necessary. Our salesperson says that despite being "airtight," there are 3 air changes per hour and moisture is not a problem with timber framing.

I don't mean the costs of the structural engineer, but the additional costs that structural engineering can cause. More reinforcement, thicker slab, thicker ceiling, thicker retaining wall, and these are not factored in - unless the construction company has a good crystal ball.

As I understand it, they guarantee us that no additional costs will arise for such things. This is apparently some kind of mixed calculation. But I would have that confirmed again before signing.

Is there a geological report?

Yes.

Don't be mad at me. Change the floor plan. Remove the garage from the basement and build a carport. Don't use the basement as a basement, but as living space. Your budget doesn't allow for dead space.

That is actually a good idea. We will think about it more carefully. That could, for example, significantly reduce the upper floor.

Thanks also for the other tips.

And the utility room and storage are currently somewhat oversized, as they were somewhat unplanned. Instead of the office on the ground floor, you could then integrate a pantry/storage room on the ground floor.

We will think about that as well. But I think I like the idea of moving the children's rooms down better.