Cost planning - core renovation of farmhouse / country house

which trade is cheaper in existing buildings than in new construction?

Well, primarily shell construction, outdoor facilities, often the roof. A renovation can definitely be significantly cheaper than a new build, that's true.

Well, primarily shell construction, outdoor facilities, often the roof. A renovation can definitely be significantly cheaper than a new build, that's true.

This is about a major renovation. That is a relatively fixed term. Everything is simply redone, including the roof. Yes, you save the shell construction. But the savings easily get eaten up by the additional effort for gutting and the fiddly work on the new parts. The outdoor areas are often ruined just for that reason, because heavy machinery has to be used. But of course, you can also get lucky.

So, for the dismantling with a lot of own work and disposal, we needed about 15k, whereby I did not include the disposal of the old roof covering. Roof truss remains, walls remain, drainage, house connection electricity, telecom etc. are there. There is screed… That already adds up.

This is about a complete renovation. That is a relatively fixed term. Everything is simply redone, including the roof.

But only very few complete renovations are real complete renovations. Often, various extensions remain.

Yes, you save the shell. But the savings are easily used up by the additional effort for the gutting and the fiddling with the new.

I don’t see it that way from my (private and professional) experience. The shell including access and often outdoor facilities are not compensated by the gutting. And it is not fiddling either, because the shell of the old building and the shell of the new building do not really differ.

And it’s not a tricky fix either, since the shell of the old building and the shell of the new building don’t really differ.

Yes and no. It depends on the age and quality of the building. Old building shells rarely tend to be pleasantly square. A slope in the floor of several centimeters is also not uncommon. The desired property sought by the OP – [Resthof im Außenbereich] – would likely fall into the pre-1950 category and therefore be more costly to renovate than a house from, for example, the 1970s.

But the savings are easily used up by the additional effort for gutting and the fiddly work of the new.

And it’s not fiddly work either, since the shell of the old building and the shell of the new building don’t really differ.

Oh yes it is. In existing buildings, what would be "just created" in a new building also has to be fitted in – so the phenomenon of extra hours affects the trades more evenly, instead of increasingly "towards the end" as in new construction. Gutting is then relatively least effort when you do everything new, so you don’t have to work around existing installations. The amount of extra hours can be reduced by thorough measurement, likewise a thorough briefing (or, unfortunately rarely, still existing up-to-date documentation) pays off with partly remaining installations. Modernization is more exciting / satisfying for the urge to tinker, but otherwise I would prefer the cleaner and less surprising new build. Where nothing was there before, there are also no dark tight spots.

The desired object searched for by the OP – a farmstead in a rural area – is more likely to fall into the category before 1950 and accordingly be more costly to renovate than a house from, for example, the 1970s.

A farmstead is regularly a genuine "old building". The most laborious objects are from the post-war shortage years with lots of improvisation and cheap constructions, up until about the first third of the 60s, often still with night storage heaters. A farmstead in a rural area usually also means a "pit". The 70s weren’t great either, rather a peak time for "modern" building pollutants.