Assessment of feasibility of construction project

When I was young, the neighborhood looked like this: father, mother, child 1, child 2, 130 sqm, pitched roof. However, plus basement! So you have to subtract the spare rooms from the (today's) living area. Above ground, there was only a broom closet.

So you still have to subtract the replacement rooms from the (current) living area.

Oh, the 54 sqm of garage floor space that are nowadays of course simply added on - which are sometimes even stylized as a deal-breaker for a plot of land - I hadn’t even "included" yet.

Most build what is possible... or does anyone really believe that someone would build "small (120..140sqm)" if they could also build "large (200+)"? Probably not...

Most people build what is possible... or does anyone really believe that someone would build "small (120..140sqm)" if they could also build "large (200+)"? Probably not...

I agree with you. The question for me is only why? Theoretically, I could afford significantly "more" as well. But personally, I don't want to give up my personal freedom because of the house. That means I still want to be able to spontaneously go out to eat, order food sometimes, or just have a few beers relaxed in the pub. And all that without immediately panicking because of the mortgage. Many indeed build as big as possible and also push themselves financially to the limit. But that is not my idea of life. But everyone: to each their own.

that who builds "small (120..140sqm)" when they could also build "large (200+)"?

Normally not. However, I have the impression that in times of cheap construction loans, reality deviates less from the dream castle than usual, although it would be better for the builders.

I am not saying that most will actually build "that large" afterwards. I just notice that in the planning discussions here, the shoe size 150/160 (plus six-by-nine-meter garage) is very strongly represented, while the professions/income groups mentioned suggest that the aspiring homeowners as tenants probably live rather in 90 to 100 sqm (plus parking space or even parking at a streetlight). The obviousness with which such large thinking occurs makes me already see Zwegat & Co lurking around the corner.

I agree with you there. The only question for me is why?
Theoretically, I could afford a lot more.
Personally, however, I don't want my personal freedom to be taken away by the house. That means I still want to be able to spontaneously go out to eat, order food sometimes, or just have a few beers relaxed in the pub. And all this without immediately panicking about the mortgage.
Many actually build as big as possible and also push themselves financially to the limit.
But that’s not my view of life. But here too: to each their own.

No, well... then you simply can’t afford more there. I assume most builders have common sense... if you build in such a way that you have no money left for going out or vacations, that rather seems unwise. We built smaller than we could. The bank would have easily given us over 1 million in credit back then. 500k was enough... somewhere the size is sufficient (I hope). Who knows what I’ll say in 1 or 2 years...