Does the real estate market increasingly force more families to build?

That cities cannot (draw) funds is also due to a lack of skilled personnel. They were cut.

But whatever: That doesn't help currently. As long as no one steps on the investment accelerator and interest rates have to stay low, prices will remain high.

The OP asks how to deal with this. Unfortunately, nothing can be done immediately.

Indirectly, one can try to abandon this ideology of saving on the part of the state, which is also embedded in the voters; our politicians do not fall from the sky. Then - possibly - there will be more housing in 20 years.

Or one flees to areas where there is still something. For that, one leaves their environment behind. Also not nice.

I agree that there are a number of misdevelopments that make housing too expensive and income disparities too great. We should be able to handle this better socially and politically with our basic conditions in Central Europe. On the other hand, with an open view of the world, I have to state that we are describing problems here that we would not have if we were not doing so well. Often we do not look that far and shift the boundaries of our everyday horizon within the bubble we live in. In this mode, problems like "a compulsion to build" arise.

With an open view of the world, I must on the other hand state that we are describing problems here that we wouldn’t have if things weren’t going so well for us.

And who benefits from comparisons downwards? I always picture the chancellor with the diamond-shaped hand gesture saying "we are doing well"... It used to be better and can be much better without anything breaking as a result. That should be the standard that applies. At some point there will be a study showing that German homeless people are much better off than Nigerian ones (despite worse weather). Garnished with "we are doing well". Besides, the cause of the problems is not the high level from which we are looking. This approach excuses those responsible and there is no reason for that.

We have also dealt with the question of converting a property into residential space, simply because the demand is high. The fact is, it’s not worth it. Construction costs are so high that the rents (in DD) can’t keep up for a long time.

So we thought that with the increasing demand, the city might offer funding to make it worthwhile. Nothing at all! All nonsense. No one receives a bit of support. Sure, you can build silos for lowlifes with 15 years of rent control. And I deliberately say lowlifes. Those who moved in there shit in the elevator daily and everything is wrecked. The landlords are constantly renovating. Pointless. As long as no one takes to the streets because of the housing shortage, no one cares.

Apart from that, I agree with that this is whining at a high level. Here in the East there is still plenty of space and building land. Not everyone can have a house on the outskirts of Munich or Cologne. So just come here if having a house with a garden is so important to you.

In general, my husband and I regularly clash over the question of whether the state is responsible for ensuring that everyone has affordable housing in the big city. I say “No, unrealistic” – those who can’t afford it have to live outside. He says “Yes” – housing is a basic right and the city must also offer something for the poor. So far we have no solution.

when it comes to the question of whether Father State is responsible for everyone having affordable housing in the big city.

What is there to argue about? Housing is the basis of a dignified existence and that is constitutionally protected. Of course the state must intervene when, where the jobs are (from the fruits of which taxes are derived), it is no longer possible to live. Moreover, the unaffordability of housing cannot only be due to the prices but also to the incomes. These were strongly restrained in their development by the "Alliance for Jobs" through state control. So the state can, if it wants. But it always only wants to move in the direction dictated by some lobbies that do not care about the common good. Something like "unrealistic."

Moreover, the cause of the problems is not the high level from which we are looking. This approach excuses those responsible, and there is no reason for that.

I can fully endorse these words: the overall view should not relativize suboptimal actions, no matter the level. That would be a fatal oversimplification.

It is about personal satisfaction for me. Our wishes and ideas combined with blindness to what "is there" can wear us down. We unlearn gratitude. A simple example: very few of us have ever had to experience war. That we have peace and can move freely every day is as normal to us as breathing. Occasionally looking beyond the everyday horizon is healthy. That is a point of adjustment within our own responsibility. "Forced to build" – no, really not.