Did we have too many concerns about the financing?

Exemplary! Everything very well considered and calculated, of course with a good financial basis. Just one personal remark: In your retirement planning, you have expenses of 0 EUR listed. I would recommend taking out something in the future.

In general, I also wonder how ordinary earners (even if both work) can afford a property (especially detached) near metropolitan areas. Considering that in the 80s/90s it was usually enough if only one parent had a "normal job," and yet they could afford the detached house. Perhaps today's demands around the property have increased. There always has to be a car for each family member, three vacations a year, and so on.

There were no smartphones with flat rates per person
There was no pay TV
Children’s clothes were handed down, especially things like communion dresses
Max. 1 car
Garden with own vegetables
There were no vacations

Children’s bathroom, KNX, etc. were unknown

Live and build like back then and it will still work out

Absolutely right, demands or what is called "standard" have increased! In addition:

The market regulates land and property prices, but it reduces the number of market participants through high entry barriers. In other words: the market works – but not for everyone. Even the strictest "free market advocates" have now come to realize this.

The minimum requirements for construction have become significantly more burdensome. Building cheaply is no longer possible. By the way, this is also one reason why it is so difficult to build affordable rental units.

Much has been said about the healthy planning and very good security, also that a) it is not transferable or representative for everyone and b) one does not necessarily have to be immune to everything because of it. However, it will certainly be reassuring, especially if it personally puts you at ease.

What makes me - as apparently also Sichtbeton82 - suspicious is the fact that the protection against risks and the security of additional retirement provision do not quite match the attitude towards the securities of the project, or that underlying original fears are not entirely in harmony with the protections.

It is not that one cannot do it this way and prefers to use the money not invested against disability insurance or serious illnesses to pay down debt, but in principle, their described and apparent attitude rather suggests that they are also more oriented towards security and protection there, which cannot really be recognized or confirmed.

The data represents the status before the purchase. Meanwhile, I also have a BAV and I have a BU. A UV might also be useful, since we do quite a bit ourselves.

Just a quick off-topic: I would recalculate the [BAV] once more. With the net salary, a [BAV] is hardly worthwhile anymore, especially without a guaranteed interest rate. This is partly due to the contribution assessment limits of the health insurance. Without a co-payment from the employer, I would blindly claim that this is a losing deal for you.

, how does the financing actually look? Did I overlook something?