Cultivation Planning / Change

I can let go of some no-gos under certain conditions.

The only truly inviolable taboo is to move the parents to the upper floor. I brought this up again over the weekend, and it simply cannot be done.

The framework conditions are thus limited to the fact that only the upper floor can be changed (extension, conversion, adding a story, ...) and the financial aspects. For the existing property without changes, I can still get about €80,000 in loans if things go well. Everything beyond that must necessarily be 100% value-increasing to ensure the financing.

This must also include if we have to move out for 3 months or other incidental costs arising from the measures.

I don't understand why the roof is affected differently than with the architect's extension.

You mean you'll be cheaper adding another 3x10m = 30m² additionally, than removing half the exterior wall and properly supporting it? *doubtfully scratching head*

With the extension as planned, only the dormer is removed and the passage to the extension is made there. In other words, no load-bearing elements are touched at all. Looking at your design, the entire back wall of the old building over almost the entire width will actually be removed, and about 50% of the old building's underfloor heating including screed must be taken out because the walls in which the supply lines and control elements run are simply gone.

Conceivably possible. Costs are not tangible for me.

If I calculate with ~2000€/m² living space, an expansion of the extension by 30m² will cost me about €60,000—probably less.

As I said, it is conceivable—I will suggest it to the architect. From a layout perspective, I really like the design.

He emphasized once again that this applies to an extension, i.e. to measures that almost entirely increase value. Conversions in existing buildings count only partially (about 50%) as value increase -

However, this logic (conversion = change, for something new, the old is demolished; extension = material and enclosed space are added on net) applies only to the financing approval. From the market's perspective, this results in creating a somewhat unattractive room layout, and is therefore largely wasted money. If one wanted or had to sell the property, it might fetch 40,000 EUR more after having invested 200,000 EUR.

That may be true in theory, but so far I have not felt at any bank that they pay attention to such "details" when doing an appraisal.

Most have entered living space, location, and other parameters and calculated a figure (mostly Sprengnetter). The financing was then calculated based on this.

Up to a market value of €300,000, this is supposedly still sufficient today, no one comes and looks closely at what the house was worth before, and no one checks whether it actually looks that good afterwards and is worth that much more.

I may be completely wrong about this, but that is my impression and it has also been confirmed to me by advisors and other builders in my circle of acquaintances.

Only from a market value of €300,000 was (at least the bank I was at on Saturday) the bank obliged to obtain an appraisal before financing, and then to base their decision on it.

But even there the advisor said that in practice it goes like this: before a financing commitment, an appraiser comes by, evaluates the property, and that’s it. In most cases, they will not look at any plans of what is supposed to be done. And even if they do, they will only evaluate exactly that plan. Whether it is then actually implemented that way, or completely replanned, no one cares anymore.

Whether this is really the case, I cannot say as mentioned, but that is how it was presented to me.

That's all well and good, but do you not care at all about your safety and that of your family in case of an emergency? Is it really only important to you to secure financing for your current plans, no matter the cost?

That may be the case in theory, but so far I have never felt that any bank pays attention to such "details" during an appraisal.

For the bank, that may be perfectly fine. I just wanted to point out that this cannot be transferred 1:1 to the market; it can appear differently there. In a sales case – which you do not always have entirely under control – the assumed value can turn out quite differently. For the bank, this logic "later there is a built tangible equivalent" is indeed practical. From the buyer’s perspective, this results in a "you can find better laid-out properties elsewhere" object.