Assessment New Construction 2025/2026 - BW Rural Area

Are we talking about a Danwood Park 156W S for one of the offers (and which one for the other)?

The last listing is the Park 156W and the Park 156W S-Line. Yep.

Besides the se*-topic and salary topic, there is a third topic where a lot is lied about, namely the house topic. Either people complain because they want to be pitied or they pretend it’s only something for those who can afford it

[...] However, they don’t make their product more expensive than it actually is. Rather, they tend to lowball – how much a house build really costs can be seen in the upgrades and construction-related incidental costs. You can see it yourself in your own list with the question mark items.

And with the question mark items it often comes to "complaining," because in my observation these question mark items are often underestimated.

Just some "complaining" from my environment:
"The garden develops over time": Still walking over pallets into the house after 2 years because there’s no money for landscaping.

"Earthworks approx. €15,000.": Steep hillside plot, had to finance more, still living in a dune landscape after one year because no money left for soil disposal.

"Sewer connections cost about €5,000.": Plot was undeveloped, development costs were four times higher.

We very early had earthworks estimated by an acquaintance who used to work in the industry. He said at least €75,000. Various providers also tried to tell us something about €20,000 - €40,000.
Actual offers were indeed over €80,000. Fortunately, we planned it from the start. And now we just hope that it fits.
(Only three providers realistically estimated earthwork costs from the start as far as visible, all others severely underestimated. We were aware of this pitfall.)
(For that, the plot was cheap. No complaining.)

What I want to say with this (to the thread starter): Plan enough buffer; take steps as soon as possible to reduce any estimation inaccuracies.

There’s more "complaining" from my environment. More examples (equipment):
"No one told us we couldn’t use the attic as storage!" (Was hidden behind technical terms in the construction specifications.)
"The [Luft-Luft-Wärmepumpe] can’t heat the house in winter, we had to install infrared heaters!"
"The floor in the entrance area is completely scratched!"
"The plaster looks completely worn after one year."
"We have 35° in the house on sunny days." (Huge windows without shading.)
"We forgot storage space and have to put the vacuum cleaner under the open staircase."
"Floor-to-ceiling window in front of the toilet wasn’t such a smart idea after all." (My personal highlight. Because very surprising.)
And so on and so forth.

What I want to say is: At the beginning of the journey, we’re laymen. We don’t know what we don’t know. What sometimes sounds negative is a reference to these "blind spots."

Ps: started similarly to you here, his numbers are similar.

Aaaaaah! How naive I was back then.

The standard square villa sets the "standard" with 160 sqm as a result from a 10m edge length; with 9.5m edge length it becomes 140. Then a T is placed in the bathroom that visually shrinks the ballroom. Next to it is a double garage (as long as the "tail," barely smaller than the dog) for the two cars you need to commute to the two full-time jobs required for financing. So far, so 7016 (the new 08/15), the OP actually tops it off with the gilded fly screens.

I have no idea what 7016 is referencing. I have a theory why 160 sqm is becoming so popular:
The bigger you build, the more mistakes the planning forgives.

I have seen so many very impractical solutions in already built houses in everyday life last year that only worked somehow because the floor area was larger.

In my impression, 120-130 sqm forgives much less unnecessary frills that trigger a hindering chain reaction of consequences than 160 sqm.

Unfortunately, it’s just more expensive.

Add to that the ubiquitous very large houses in show home parks, social media, and so on.

Many things are already included as standard in the construction specifications, and I have worked out and listed the points that are not included.

Last year, when we compared providers, I worked through a dozen construction specifications and actually noted them down in an Excel sheet (let’s see if stones get thrown now...).

That was highly interesting.

What does this have to do with this thread?

Part of the bewilderment that can be read here in many posts is exactly that – ignorance.

Without knowing the provider, you can only speculate. Without knowing the house, speculation is also made. Or not.

Much here is based on experience values. The fewer information there is, the more blurry they become.

A big problem here, too: Much more interesting than what is in the construction specification is what is not in it.

Everything not included there and not specially recorded in the contract is not included.

The construction specification is included now. I can’t assign the provider, it’s new to me.

What strikes me immediately (skimmed roughly, the following listing may and will contain errors):
- Electrical is extremely tight for many.
- Concrete roof tiles come in very different qualities. Since nothing is stated here, I assume minimum quality. Upgrading probably makes sense.
- Attic type not mentioned -> I therefore assume a truss roof.
- There is nowhere anything about the construction site. Worst case: all costs "borne by the client." (Scaffolding, crane, and so on.)
- There is nowhere anything about permitting services (at least I haven’t found it). Worst case: all costs "borne by the client."
- Floors: No indication of sizes for tiles. Vinyl is also quality-wise "from"-"to." With cheap vinyl in the hall, you won’t have any joy in the entrance area. (On a personal note: I don’t like vinyl or laminate in the entrance area, no matter the quality.)
- No providers named for the technology anywhere. Quality unclear.
- Operationally ready installation does not automatically mean commissioning.
- I often read the word "borne by the client."

(Worst case does not mean it is so. But there are providers where otherwise self-evident things are not included. So watch out there!)

(I would fundamentally always advise a pre-selection of materials or at least a visit to the selection center so you can roughly assess the real quality.)

Also, I took the comments to heart and we have now considered a second building type which is just under €130,000 cheaper (with the same sqm area).

Which building types are being compared?

Opinions? Is something missing? Have we overlooked anything?

The risks of the plot are only estimated.

If I were to give only one tip in financial planning ever, it would be: Have a soil report done before planning (including analysis of disposal class). Check if the boundary stones are there. See how deep the shafts have to be laid. Get rough estimates on this. Best from people who don’t want to sell you anything.

Here you can easily miscalculate if it goes badly (disposal class Z2, non-load bearing ground, etc.). The risk is probably only relatively low. But if it occurs, it throws the whole planning overboard.

Also think about insurances and building experts.

I have no idea what 7016 refers to.

RAL 7016 - Anthracite grey The color of all windows nowadays…

I have no idea what the 7016 refers to.

The window color RAL 7016, Anthracite

A big problem here is also: Much more interesting than what is stated in the construction service description is what is not included there.

Ohh, yes.

Which building types are being compared to each other?

The last listing is the Park 156W and the Park 156W S-Line. Yep.

It is about Danwood. They are supposed to build properly but are somewhat scaled down in functions. For example, they may have installed windows upstairs that cannot be opened. I once had a house calculated for myself, but that was a while ago and a leap in time. There are some here, who can also be found under the corresponding subforums about Danwood – they can certainly say to what extent items can be omitted or where they need to be upgraded. There are social forums where dozens of Danwood customers gather and help each other. Constructive help does not work if one constantly beats around the bush. There is also someone on Insta who not only constantly shows and raves about her Point 156W there. So it is not wrong at all to stay on social media, look specifically, and also follow. The Danwood listing, meaning theirs, should be more or less accurate. The fixed price remains for 9 months.

I have no idea what 7016 refers to. I have a theory why the 160m² is becoming so popular: The bigger you build, the more mistakes the design forgives. Last year I saw so many very impractical solutions in everyday life in already built houses, which only somehow worked because the floor area was increased. In my impression, 120-130m² forgives much less frills that trigger a hindering chain reaction of consequences than 160m². Unfortunately, it is just more expensive.

The opposite is true: 130 sqm is too small when the need would have demanded more. Planning too large does not relax anything by itself, bottlenecks can also occur in larger sizes. The 20 sqm of a 160 sqm detached villa compared to its 140 sqm counterpart only allow the installation of the two Fashion Maniac details "straight chicken ladder" and "T in the middle of the bathroom". Seventy sixteen is the new zero eight fifteen means that many home builders prefer the self-chosen everyman average of a bestseller window frame color (namely the fifty Shades of Grey gathered in the RAL color number 7016) over showing their own taste. Fear of getting kicked out of(f) the Peer Group (a pathological form of herd behavior), nothing more.

The last listing is the Park 156W and the Park 156W S-Line. Yep. [ / ] It is about .

That’s kind of you, but it would have been the OP’s responsibility to bring clarity into his discussion.

That is kind of you, but it would have been the OP's responsibility to introduce fluidity into his discussion.

I know. Unfortunately, he does not respond.