Correlation of house construction price/wall system to resale value

That is a cliché, there were plenty of ugly places and in some areas you couldn’t hang laundry out without risking coal dust getting on it. But that it was only ugly is simply not true. The southern edge of the Ruhr area was already beautiful back then and a local recreation area.

Then let’s be more precise. About 90% was ugly. In the northern area transitioning to Münsterland, eastwards towards Westphalia, westwards towards the Lower Rhine, and in the south, where the “Bonzen” lived (and still live), it was nice. Today it’s somehow the areas north of the A40 – whether Marxloh/Meiderich, Kray/Katernberg, or DO-Nordstadt – that are still terrible. You wouldn’t want to be found dead hanging over the fence there. But you can leave your tuned S-Class parked for a week with doors and windows open. Everyone would assume it’s a clan car and leave it alone. I grew up right in the middle of the structural change and am a Ruhrpott native at heart.

That is a cliché, there were a lot of ugly places and in some areas you couldn’t hang laundry outside without risking coal dust falling on it. But that it was only ugly is simply not true. The southern edge of the Ruhr area was already beautiful back then and a recreational area.

That’s true. But no worker lived the way we find nice today and many workers can now. This was directed to , who talked about some good things before the decline.
I’ve been living in the Ruhr area since the time of my great-grandparents. In the golden 70s, my grandparents still had a coal stove. When they finally left home themselves, the first truly luxurious worker apartments looked like this: the toilet was no longer in the hallway for several households. Rhine fish smelled of tar when fried. Even in my own childhood (born ’86), the Emscher was still the stinking cesspool that scented our already visibly greened residential area in the north of Oberhausen.

All of this is better today. Much better. A decline upwards, hence my first post. This idea that it was better before is nonsense.

And yes, there are new problems. I worked for half a year at a school in Dortmund’s Nordstadt. The description by hits the mark. There are a few such places.

And if you want to see an echo of the old ugliness, drive through between the Duisburg ports and Bruckhausen.

Before we decided to build, we of course also looked around the market to see what was available. For us, it was clear that a prefabricated house was offered at a lower price than a solid house. The "old" prefabricated houses naturally also have a different reputation when it comes to durability, etc. But at the moment, it is definitely the case that there is a price difference.

But at the moment it is definitely the case that there is a price difference.

As long as they are not old/older houses, there is actually no difference. Although comparability is difficult anyway, since all used houses are different.

Yes, I mean older houses. With new houses, it's more about the construction costs, and those are increasingly merging. Only if the house of the TO is to be sold is it also "old". Of course, no one knows how the acceptance of prefabricated houses and their prices will develop compared to now.

Yes, I mean older houses.

But in the past, there were indeed significant differences in quality (PCP, lindane, asbestos, wall construction, etc.). Today’s houses are of equal quality regardless of construction method. Even office buildings and the like are built as prefabricated houses (timber frame/timber hybrid) – I’m talking about hundreds of millions in costs (for individual projects). I’ll be provocative: prefabricated houses (wood) will be easier to resell in the future due to their CO2 footprint than their counterparts made of stone/concrete. Perhaps there will even be additional charges on stone houses upon purchase in the future? Have you ever thought in that direction?