Affordable homeownership - Is a house with land still realistic?

Phew - a bit too much generalization all at once...

- from my point of view, on one hand the land prices are becoming more and more utopian - especially in the centers and the surrounding commuter belts. The problem: many associate a "home" also with the corresponding land, which is supposed to guarantee a certain minimum degree of "my home is my castle." Result: you can't do much about the price there...

- on the other hand, for many a home also means a certain minimum living space - otherwise we're talking about the tiny house. You have to like that too...

- and in the end, I also need a certain land size for a tiny house again - see problem #1

- the crowning finale is then the fulfillment of the requirements set by the administration - which you can currently see very clearly based on various projects (was it Bremen? Hamburg): they "don't want" single-family houses anymore - multi-family houses are much more efficient...

Conclusion: difficult...

the main problem I see is that we have to come back down to earth once again. In times of low interest rates, there was no stopping upwards. And even when following some floor plan discussions here, big, bigger, biggest.

You also have to say goodbye to the idea that the buddy has 160 sqm, I want the same, but preferably even more. It used to be the big Dallas staircase, today it’s the 15 sqm children’s room with a children’s bathroom.

And you also have to be able to make peace with a semi-detached house again. Especially in regions where land prices have skyrocketed.

I am also thinking again about boklok, which in principle was not bad, but even there the demands have risen so enormously, well, we all know the result.

The good old Günter Krause already had this idea of the people's house, and here too we know what became of it. So, this idea is not new

One must also say goodbye to the idea that the buddy has 160 sqm, I want the same, but preferably even more. In the past, it was the large Dallas staircase, today it's the 15 sqm children's room with a children's bathroom.

Whether you build a two-story 120 sqm rabbit hutch or 160 sqm, it doesn't make much difference depending on the provider. The biggest fixed costs are not very dependent on the size.

At Danwood, for example, there’s the Family 157 for just under 250k, the 1.5-story houses with 120sqm cost about 200,000k. That’s definitely worth considering.

Sure, it’s only 50 grand, peanuts. But financed/paid off, that’s 200 euros a month.

Sorry, but that’s a bit delusional to say something like that. Nice if you don’t care and smaller houses are just rabbit hutches to you.

At Danwood, for example, there is the Family 157 for just under 250k, the 1.5-story houses with 120sqm cost about 200,000k. That is definitely worth considering.

Price and area develop quite proportionally in the equipment lines at Danwood. 30% more area for 25% more price. The price per sqm thus remains roughly the same. The further costs also develop accordingly. If the finished house (small) then costs 350k, the bigger brother already costs roughly the 100k more I mentioned. That is then 400€ monthly in the installment.

Sure, it’s only 50 grand, peanuts. But that makes 200 euros a month financed/paid off.

Sorry, but that’s a bit of megalomania to say something like that. Nice if you don’t care and smaller houses are just rabbit hutches for you.

No, that is actually a totally reasonable calculation. 50k is not much when you consider the house including the land, incidental purchase costs, incidental building costs, outdoor facilities, etc. Then you should rather save on other things, because almost everything can be retrofitted or postponed... only the house size itself can only be changed later with a lot of effort...

By the way, I built my house for under 2,000 EUR/m², turnkey with lots, lots of personal effort. And those are already the prices after the Corona price shock of 2022...