Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

I think that houses nowadays are really built simply and down-to-earth.

That is very subjective. The areas and equipment are becoming larger or higher quality.

If you mean simple and down-to-earth, then take a look at the houses from DFH, Traumhäuser, and others.
There you get down-to-earth houses including land from €240,000. House sizes from 85sqm. It is quite simple and cheap to build.

can you tell me why Schwäbisch Hall is so expensive? Is it a home savings contract? Of course, it is an insurer and not a bank. What advantages does concluding with SHA have compared to a bank?

These are the current standard conditions for an annuity loan. At a pinch, a very small amount more could be possible, but certainly not much. Fixed interest rate loans with a home savings contract have an effective interest rate of 2.70% with a 30-year purchase period/fixed interest rate term and are not cheaper either, as they only go up to 80% loan-to-value ratio. The times of cheap interest rates for 100% financing seem to be over.

Look at the houses from the 70s. These were almost exclusively architect-designed houses, complex floor plans, often split-level, party basements, sauna, maybe outdoor pool... Plot size 1000m2...
In our area, these houses are very sought after and rarely available for under 1 million.
I have found only a handful of new builds with similar features around here.

In the 70s, a lot of terraced houses with sometimes only 80 sqm were built. For families. And bungalows with 100 sqm. My husband grew up in such a residential area. Hundreds of houses, none larger than 120 sqm. Shoe boxes with flat roofs. Today, these are often enlarged by combining two houses.

In the 1970s, mass quantities of terraced houses with sometimes only 80 sqm were built. For families. And bungalows with 100 sqm. My husband grew up in such a residential area. Hundreds of houses, none larger than 120 sqm. Shoeboxes with flat roofs. Today, they are often enlarged by combining two houses.

Then we live in different worlds...

It strongly depends on the family background what one considers "standard," I think :) Besides, an existing building that has been maintained and (with money!!!) expanded over 30-40 years with a sauna, pool, terraces, or similar amenities is naturally not a fair comparison for a new building whose outdoor facilities are not yet 100% finished. If you add up the money the parent generation has invested in the house over decades and use it for the new building - then some would definitely feel uneasy :)

Here is an example from my childhood:

Uncle No. 1, department head in a medium-sized company, sole breadwinner, 3 children...
Split-level house, downstairs a basement bar, pool table, solarium ;), upstairs table tennis room (!!!), 3 terraces ... - a light-filled dream house
About 15 years ago, one of the sons inherited the house and remodeled it to be "accessible for disabled people." I could cry when I saw the place. Small rooms, terraces were cut because they were too expensive, basement bar converted into a granny flat...

Uncle No. 2: technical draughtsman at the car manufacturer (no, not a designer), sole breadwinner, 4 children...
Villa with pool, marble floors and almost 2000m2 garden...

and no, they left no debts and also nothing inherited from the parents.

When I read here that two full-time earners with degrees can barely afford a terraced house and have to consider whether they can build a garage because it is LUXURY, I think about where this is all heading...