Buying Advice - Difference in Renovation Needs 1965 vs. 1985

Hello everyone,

after being a silent reader for quite some time, things are now becoming more concrete for us and I would appreciate a few opinions.

A brief introduction: My wife and I are both approaching 40, and we have two small children. We currently live quite well in a rental apartment, but unfortunately without a garden. We have been looking around the market for a few years now, but so far no property has really convinced us. However, now a property has come onto the market that looks quite attractive to us. I would like to get an external perspective on whether we are on the right track here or if we have just been softened up too much by the long search. There is also a second property nearby that we like, but the price is probably a bit too high (after renovations). Maybe someone can comment on a comparison of the two properties.

House 1:
- Scout-ID 153338292
- Detached house with a granny flat
- Built in 1965
- Basement level with granny flat, living floor, attic (partially converted, but possibly not approved)
- Living space reportedly 210 m² (but rather optimistically calculated, I assume realistically 170 m²). Additionally, some usable space in the cellar (approx. 30 m²)
- Oil heating from 1997, energy efficiency unknown (but probably quite poor)
- New windows from 2000, otherwise only bathroom/kitchen of granny flat renovated
- Plot size 665 m², standard land value 510 €/m² --> approx. 339,000 Euros
- Purchase price 495,000 Euros

House 2:
- Classified ads, "Family-friendly living in Reutlingen. Spacious detached house with granny flat, garden and expansion reserves."
- Detached house with granny flat
- Built in 1985
- Very nice view, but quite a lot of traffic noise. A large new development area will soon be built on the green field below, but the view should remain due to building height (distance at least 20 m) max. ground floor edge + 1.5 m.
- Basement level with granny flat, living floor, attic (apparently simply converted, but unapproved and not part of the living space)
- Living space reportedly 175 m² (also optimistically calculated here (although without attic), realistically rather 150 m²), usable space in the basement just under 50 m² + attic
- Gas heating from 2003, energy demand 100 kWh/m²*a (energy certificate from the company on site here, but the value seems quite low for the year built. Walls are insulating masonry k = 0.68 W/m²*K, roof unknown)
- Plot size 594 m², standard land value 510 €/m² --> approx. 303,000 Euros
- Purchase price 698,000 Euros

House 1 has piqued our interest. According to the realtor, the roof needs to be done, but given the construction year 1965, we expect a complete renovation. The premium for the house compared to the standard land value is only about 155,000 Euros here, normally even absolute wreck properties would be asked for significantly more. Provided there are no major defects now (before purchase we would definitely inspect with an expert), and it is "only" typical of the construction year, is the price probably okay? After reading through this forum, I suspect your estimate for renovation costs is 2,000 - 2,500 €/m², whereas we actually hope to carry out the renovation with 300,000 Euros.

House 2 would also be interesting, but it is also already 40 years old. We fear that quite a few renovations will be required here as well, which with the purchase price approximately 230,000 Euros higher (including ancillary costs) simply may no longer be feasible for us. Or is it rather to be expected that only renovations are necessary here, and an energy upgrade is not necessary/sensible given the energy demand of approx. 100 kWh/m²*a (I just don't know how reliable such a value is) (which would of course save significant costs).

I would appreciate opinions on how you see House 1 and how House 2 is viewed in comparison.

Best regards

60 years old or 40 years old doesn’t matter in the end. Both need a complete overhaul. Without having read the exposé, clearly House 1. Much cheaper with similar renovations. You have to assess the location.

Energetically, the difference between 1960 and 1980 is likely less dependent on legal requirements and more on the execution. You will want to do something with both houses. The renovation effort depends on the condition of maintenance. A house from the 80s can certainly be run-down, while a house from the 60s can still be in tip-top shape.

Thank you already for the assessments. From the outside, both houses look quite well maintained for their age; hopefully, we can say more about the interior after the viewings.

With House 2, I am somewhat puzzled by the energy performance certificate, which only just exceeds 100 kWh/m²*a (gas). Simply calculated, that would be about 18,000 kWh/a for 175 m². With a conversion to underfloor heating and a heat pump, a consumption of around 6,000 kWh of electricity should be achievable, without any insulation. Even with rising electricity prices, that is quite manageable, and a payback for elaborate facade and roof insulation would hardly be achievable. Am I making a rough thinking/calculation error, or could that make a significant difference in the renovation costs? Nevertheless, House 2 would still be too expensive; the price would have to come down by another 10%.

For a heat pump, insulation of the facade is almost never necessary. I have a 60s house myself. Even before insulation, the heat pump worked great (and cheaply). Only windows, basement ceiling, attic ceiling, and underfloor heating (and with my tenant, radiators).

For a WP, insulation of the facade is almost never necessary.

Valuable tip!
Additionally: In the past, houses were not built "airtight." Accordingly, the materials used were not designed to function in an airtight building. It is not uncommon for people to experience mold problems in houses that have been sealed afterward.
When renovating, a balance must be struck between energy efficiency and building preservation to protect one's own investment.