Buying land for a house, please advise!

Ok, that was poorly phrased. Better: the wooden houses reach the KFW standards faster with the given wall thickness. It was just easier for us because we didn’t have to think.

We didn’t have to think either. Our solid construction company is building our house. We tell them: please KfW70, then they calculate (whatever) and build accordingly with their materials Poroton with thermal insulation composite system. With a normal plot size and floor area ratio, the thickness of the walls is irrelevant for the builder.

Hello,

Thank you for the explanations. I was already aware of what the Energy Saving Ordinance is. No further comments are necessary. The only thing that was not previously in my vocabulary was "Energy Saving Ordinance House". So this meant the minimum of the energy ordinance. That is now clear.

It’s not about "instruction" for me; if I saw this as a life goal, I would have become a teacher

In my experience, timber frame houses reach the specified U-values and also the KFW standards more easily. Solid houses have to put in more effort and quickly become very expensive.

A detached house has it easier - already because of the manufacturing method - to build exterior walls suitable for KfW 70; that is correct. What is not correct, however, is that solid houses can "only" achieve the same result with more effort and also "more expensive."

You have probably adopted the perspective of your (female) salesperson - if a detached house is right for you, there is nothing against it; every system has both advantages and disadvantages - so there is no all-encompassing "good" or "bad"! However, you should not uncritically accept the statements that solid houses fare worse in direct comparison (exterior wall KfW 70). This is not true and is primarily a sales argument of the detached house industry.

What do you think, why are high-quality detached houses usually significantly more expensive? Certainly not because it is easier to design the envelope for KfW 70

Rhenish greetings

A detached house has it easier - already because of the method of construction - to make the exterior walls KfW 70 compliant; that is correct. What is not correct, however, is that a modular house achieves the same result "only" with more effort and also "more expensive."

You have probably taken over the issue of your seller -

What nonsense, we build solid ourselves. And you say it yourself. It is easier to make the walls KFW70 compliant. I did not want to say more.

We also didn’t have to think. Our solid construction company is building our house.

I still find massive KFW houses more expensive because the walls have to be thicker. I don’t know how it is with others, but we pay a lot for every centimeter. And then the bed no longer fits in the bedroom quickly - so you have to think along. If money doesn’t matter, of course, you don’t have to think at all, okay.

Hello,

What nonsense ...

Nonsense? Please explain yourself.

I still find solid KFW houses more expensive because the walls have to be thicker. I don't know how it is for others, but we pay considerably for every centimeter.

For KfW 70, a 36.5 cm thick solid masonry wall is usually sufficient (regardless of whether it is hollow brick, aerated concrete, expanded clay or pumice) or a 17.5 cm brick plus 16 cm external insulation composite system (ETICS). So why are you paying extra for that? Or do you want to achieve KFW 55?

To make it very clear once again: if you had it built in prefab construction, it would hardly be cheaper for you. Provided you chose a reputable provider.

Rhenish greetings

Hello,

I'm still figuring it out...

I meant this: You have probably taken on the issue of your seller(s)
Since we are not building a wooden house at all, I don’t have a seller. Apparently, you have a strong aversion to sellers or advertising in general. Bad experience?

So reading is not your strong suit. I am a salesperson myself and have been for a long time - this can be read publicly here; I am always straightforward.

Because I have been in this job for many years, I can easily distinguish which statements are "sales-driven" (even if maybe unconsciously) and which are amateurishly paraphrased in one’s own words. You released quite a bit in your argument on the topic that you probably would not have reproduced in this form by reading on the HBF. Which allows the conclusion that you have an immovable opinion of your own and in a way stand in your own way with once-made decisions.

It was generally about all KFW values. And aren’t 36.5 cm walls quite a considerable loss of space compared to wooden walls with equivalent KFW properties? KFW 55 will probably be even thicker. So every cm² counts in our house.

Then the question arises why you didn’t choose a single-family house, since you get the most space gain there with a tight building footprint?

By the way, you did not answer my question regarding the wall thickness in your building project, or why it is "more expensive" for you.

Rhenish regards

So reading is not your thing then. I am a saleswoman myself and have been for a long time – it’s publicly documented here; I always play with an open visor.

Is anyone interested here?

Because I have been in this job for many years, I can very well distinguish which statements are "sales-driven" (even if unconsciously) and which are amateurishly put in one’s own words. In your argument on the topic, you let slip quite a bit that you – again by reading at the main train station – probably would not have presented in this form. Which allows the conclusion that you hold an inflexible opinion and are, in a way, standing in your own way; once a decision is made.

Nested sentence ahoy? OK, apparently you are the professional and I the total layman. I have no problem with that. Wait, which one of us was the one with the inflexible opinion again?

Then the question arises why you didn’t choose a pitched roof, because there you have – with a steep roof pitch – the most gain in space?

Well, it’s not always only about size.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question regarding the wall thickness in your building project, or why it’s “more expensive” for you.

Well, for us it was like this (can of course be different for professionals like you): The base price was strictly based on the built-up area (gross). So if I have thicker walls, I lose square meters inside and have to build bigger – ergo more expensive. But haven’t I already said that? I think we are drifting off here and will soon get a warning for pointless chatter.