Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The last statistic I saw on housing creation showed less than 300,000 units for the year 2021, making it the first declining year since the early 2000s (or 2008, don't hold me to that). Haven't the conditions for subsidies been extremely tightened?

That's why there's the note in parentheses. The government's target is 400k apartments, and I assume something will be done to achieve that. A subsidy or maybe public housing companies again?

Even those renovating their little houses usually need a loan, and the current conditions hit them just as hard. Therefore, I don't think renovation of existing buildings can compensate for the collapse of the new construction business.

While those renovating often need additional money, it is by far not as much. It does make a difference whether you need 80k at 3% or 500k at the same interest rate. The second case financially crushes the average person. Many of the old houses have also already been paid off or were bought at a time when prices were significantly lower. And conversely, for renovations, the volume per house may not be very high, but there are incredibly many of them. About half of all buildings are older than 40 years, which means we are talking about many millions of houses. And if in 20 years we want to have renovated the existing stock once, that amounts to a 5% renovation rate, about 500,000 houses (not housing units!) per year. Only among those over 40 years old. But politics is actually even more ambitious with a heat pump mandate starting in 2025 and practically always the resulting renovation of the old buildings. At the same time, renovations are planned to meet new construction standards. In my assessment, the dimension is something politics itself has not remotely understood yet.

That is why the insertion in parentheses. The government's goal is 400k apartments and I assume that something will be done to achieve that. A subsidy or maybe public housing companies again?

Those who renovate often need additional money but by far not as much. It does make a difference whether you need 80k at 3% or 500k at the same interest rate. The second case financially crushes the average person. Many of the old houses are also already paid off or were bought at a time when prices were significantly lower. And vice versa, of course, when it comes to renovations, maybe per house it's not that much but there are an incredible number of them. About half of all buildings are older than 40 years, we’re talking about many millions of houses. And if we want to have renovated the existing old stock in 20 years, that comes down to a 5% renovation rate, that is about 500,000 houses (not residential units!) per year. Only for those over 40 years old. But politics are actually even more ambitious with the heat pump mandate from 2025 and practically always the resulting renovation of the oldies. At the same time, the renovation is planned to new-build standards. In my estimation, politics have not yet remotely understood the scale themselves.

Personally, I can completely understand your line of thought. I have an offer from 2012 in front of me for the energetic renovation of the house facade and roof (but no windows, heating, or photovoltaics) for just under 100k and that for a tiny house. It wasn’t done back then (by my grandmother) and today it is rarely done for the same reason – simply too expensive. It just doesn’t amortize for most anymore. This first requires a generational change of the residents and that does not happen at the speed at which orders in the new construction sector are declining, which is why there is potential for a price vacuum in materials. Politics have actually understood nothing when it comes to housing. A public housing company will also not be able to build anything without subsidies, so it’s actually irrelevant whether the tax money is sunk there or in “recklessly” spent subsidies. From my personal standpoint, I’d prefer the latter, but for me the train already left the station in January :rolleyes:

But politics is actually even more ambitious with a heat pump mandate from 2025 ...

I am curious to see how the technology will develop. Just today I read in a widely circulated home building magazine another article with the note "But the air heat pump has a decisive disadvantage: the noise." The article is from 19.04.2022 and I had thought in the meantime that the noise problem had been resolved (this is also communicated several times here in the forum). I hope so, because if they become mandatory, it could be unpleasant if the noise problem is not solved. Especially since some owners might want to skip regular maintenance over time for cost reasons.

The new LWWärmepumpen are really almost whisper quiet. The electricity price is what should make you worried. I wanted to sign up with eprimo at MediaMarkt today, for €0.31/kWh. Unfortunately, it's not available in my area. I'll probably have to pay €0.45/kWh for electricity soon. Photovoltaics and so on aside. It's currently rather unlikely that it will get cheaper. Considering the interest rates for new builds, though, these are more like peanut problems...

wanted to sign up with eprimo at MediaMarkt today,

We concluded an Eon contract with a 2-year fixed price at MM 3 weeks ago for 30.21

We signed an Eon contract with MM three weeks ago with a 2-year price guarantee for 30.21

Yes, that was still possible, but unfortunately not in my region. The price was unbeatable. 2 years fixed at €0.379/kWh Eon tariff. Would have been great. Now I'm searching again and of course find nothing.