Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

I don't understand what you want to say that hasn't already been said.... but yes, it's then about 6%.

Not quite so snappy. It's called the sender/receiver problem. Very classic in communication. From the context, I and perhaps others could mis(t)interpret your posts. :) However, your first post about it explains it. The increases in construction costs are probably far, far, far above inflation, especially when including interest rates.

Not quite so snappy. This is called the sender/receiver problem. Very classic in communication. From the context, I probably, maybe others too, misunderstood your posts. :) However, your first post explains it.

I also didn’t get the impression from my side that it was snappy... there are definitely much rougher tones here in the forum. :D
But let's leave it at sender/receiver problem. :)

I have nothing against new development areas. I do have something against dying and vacant inner cities where the entire infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, telephone, sewage, roads, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.) is already in place and not being used. A society first has to be able to afford the luxury of letting this infrastructure go unused and still maintaining and sustaining it.

My hometown has had a very stable population for 30 years. However, the built-up area has increased by 25% and with it the number of employees in the municipal building yard and the costs for road construction and maintenance. This money could be used much more sensibly...

You are definitely right about that. But where are the houses in the village centers that you can buy and live in? We were not focused on new builds from the start but would have actually preferred to buy something existing. However, despite the problem always being hyped up so much, there is simply nothing on the market that presents itself as an alternative. There are occasionally ancient half-timbered houses which as renovation cases probably exceed the budget of a new build by far, but do not have a garden. I’m not going to spend another 250k on that. Then there were many single-family houses from 1970-1980 on the market that were completely run down. They were listed for about 400k and are also renovation cases often costing another 100k. But these houses were also all gone after 2 days. At least I don’t know of any significantly vacant village centers around here.

What of course exists are houses that were once inhabited by 5 people but now only occupied by 1-2. The children have long since found something of their own. This of course makes the village grow despite steady population.

But the two problems require completely different measures. Genuine vacancy often suffers from the problems described by haydee. Catastrophic building fabric, often directly on the main road, hardly suitable as demolition sites because they are small and difficult to build on. Possibly also stress with monument protection. Who wants to voluntarily put up with that and who can afford it?
Under-occupancy, on the other hand, is more due to a lack of alternatives. When grandma moves out of her house, where does she then move to? Senior-friendly apartments that are an adequate substitute for a house hardly exist. Even less so in rural areas.

You are quite right. But where are the houses in the village centers that you can buy and live in? We were not initially set on new builds but would have even preferred to buy something from the existing stock. But for all the fuss made about the problem, there is simply nothing on the market that offers itself as an alternative. There are occasionally very old half-timbered houses that as renovation cases probably exceed the budget of a new build by far, but they don’t have a garden. I’m not going to spend another 250k for that. And then many single-family houses from 1970-1980 on the market were completely run down. They were listed for about 400k and also renovation cases, often with costs of 100k. These houses were all gone after 2 days. In any case, I don’t know of any significantly vacant village centers around here.

What there of course are, are houses that were once inhabited by 5 people but now only 1-2 people live in them. The children have long since moved out on their own. This naturally causes the village to grow despite a stable population.

However, the two problems require completely different measures. Real vacancy often suffers from the problems described by haydee. Catastrophic building fabric, often right on the main road, hardly suitable for demolition lots because they are small and challenging to build on. Possibly also stress with heritage conservation. Who wants to voluntarily endure that and who can afford it?
Under-occupation, on the other hand, is rather due to a lack of alternatives. When grandma moves out of her house, where does she go? Senior-friendly apartments that are an adequate replacement for a house almost don’t exist. Even less so in rural areas.

I partly agree with you there. I don’t understand why some owners would rather let the houses rot and decay than sell them and have zero sympathy for it. The only bright spot here at the moment is that a local carpentry company is currently trying to buy and renovate such vacancies. More of that should happen.

One more point on the topic "the places grow but the population does not." In recent decades, households have become significantly smaller. There are many more singles, both young and old. And families have only 1-2 children instead of 3. However, the space requirement does not decrease linearly with that. Even as a single person, you want to have separate living room and bedroom. You still have a double bed in the bedroom and the dining table is also big enough for more than one person. The additional space requirement with a second child mainly affects the children's room and hardly the common areas. But if I distribute the same number of people over more households and at the same time smaller households have a larger space requirement per person, then this is what you get.

Warum manche EIgentümer die Häuser lieber vergammeln und verfallen lassen als zu verkaufen verstehe ich nicht und habe da auch null Verständnis dafür

I already discussed that with haydee 100 pages ago. I also cannot really understand it.

I partly agree with you. I don’t understand why some owners prefer to let the houses decay and fall into ruin rather than sell them, and I have zero understanding for that. The only bright spot for us at the moment is that a local carpenter’s shop is currently trying to buy and renovate such vacancies. Much more of this should happen.

Let’s see how long it will take until the first ones demand a hefty surcharge on the last price from Ebay Classifieds