Buy a 25-year-old shell structure

I don't see it as grim as the others do. If there is a roof on it, the shell construction can stand dry for 25 years without much happening to it.

Of course, you can build on that. But it must be clear that €200,000 will not be enough to complete 240 sqm of living space if you have to do at least electrical, plumbing, windows/doors, insulation/plaster, screed, interior plaster, bathrooms, flooring and possible defect repairs. In addition, there are architect fees/building permit costs again. I'm not even talking about the outdoor facilities yet.

Hi,

I would primarily ignore the blanket pessimism. I myself bought an unfinished shell, but paid hardly more than the standard land value. So I almost got the shell for free. The property was inspected by an architect, a structural engineer, and a master mason with decades of experience. For me, legal matters (originally ignoring the building envelope) had to be clarified.

It is important that a new building application based on the existing structure is approvable (change in development plan, proof of energy saving ordinance, ...) so that construction can continue technically on the existing structure. 25 years is quite a statement; mine was a 10-year-old property. There are many reasons why such gems remain on the market. The real estate market is not a completely transparent and efficient market.

I clarified the technical construction issues, signed the notary contract with a right of withdrawal if the building permit does not materialize, and now we are building. In 2 weeks, the walls will be up at our place. Everything has been tip-top so far.

I would primarily ignore the blanket pessimism.

But it is not blanket at all. Did you read everything? Why the sentence?
No one said here: 25 years? No way, period.

Many say here: 400k for a 25-year-old shell "out in the sticks" is probably too much.
And many also say: 200k to finish 240m2 of living space is probably too little.
And: get an expert or architect and have it assessed.

Based on the OP's information, this is as little of a blanket statement as possible, and important so as not to approach the matter naively "because a realtor said..."

But it is not generalizing at all. Did you read everything?

Well, I read everything and many write that a demolition is necessary. I see it differently and probably does too.

Demolition is nonsense. Why? The house is not missing anything at all, as long as it has a roof and is dry.

So I read everything and many say that a demolition is necessary. I see it differently and probably too.

But they do justify it, I said so explicitly... please quote my entire post, otherwise it is not accurate. It would be a blanket statement if it just said "demolish, not worth it." But usually it doesn't, the mentioned amounts contribute significantly to this statement.