Future Vision: Construction Sins of Today

I see the ETICS as not so dramatic: there are so many of them that a technique for renovating these buildings—if it should ever be considered necessary—has a sufficiently broad market. That means no one will suffer long from nobody coming up with anything for it.

I consider it far more detrimental to resale value to subdivide plots too small and build houses that are also too small, just to shrink single-family homes to a size that even people with actually too little money can "afford": cellars omitted not as a result of a personal preference, but simply to save money on building parts that are not visible above the ground; and then placing a box with a floor plan of nine and a half meters in edge length on top; with a tent cover instead of a roof on it. Almost like the Nissen hut (sorry that the younger ones will have to Google that first) in a stylish version.

In my opinion, these substitute villas (and disjointedly built bowling alley semi-detached houses) will be the losers of the next real estate bubble. Where possible, they will be bought in pairs with the neighboring property and torn down—where not, they will be bought by families whose neighbors then respond by choosing an "alternative," causing their residential area to socially reorganize.

The biggest building sins of today are probably the thermal insulation measures with ETICS (not necessarily the mineral wool stuff but rather the plastic stuff) on house facades! Here, the heirs will have a lot of frustration when renewing or disposing of the like...

Oh yes, I think so too. Mother-in-law had her house wrapped with it 10 years ago, and it already doesn’t look so great anymore. That stuff must also be expensive to dispose of, right? How about the disposal of photovoltaic elements? Is there experience with that? Are they unproblematic?

Open staircases or generally very open buildings with large air spaces seem difficult to me with children. I wonder if open kitchens will eventually become outdated?

[...] These instead-villas (and carelessly built double semi-detached bowling alley house) will in my opinion be the losers of the next real estate bubble. Where possible, they will be bought as a double pack with the neighboring property and demolished – where not, they will be bought by families whose neighbors will then respond by choosing an "alternative", indicating that their residential area is socially restructuring.

Oh yes. And what I observe: Every tiny spot is being built on. Even the spots that barely see the sun. Here stands such a semi-detached house, wrapped between neighboring houses, living rooms facing north. At least in the sales listing it was advertised as a "natural sun protection" that renders an "expensive shading" unnecessary. The original plot would have been great to place 2 beautiful single-family homes – a total of 1,400 sqm. Instead, it became 3 semi-detached houses.

I think in the future one will have to say goodbye to single-family houses with large gardens anyway - at least near cities. Keyword infill development. It is not how I want to live with a child, but certainly very sensible.

... (and unconcentratedly built bowling alley semi-detached house) are ...

I am asking now because it has been bothering me since yesterday and I haven't found anything on Google either: What is "unconcentrated" .... or the entire term "unconcentratedly built bowling alley semi-detached house"? Since I know some of your posts, I know there is something clever behind it, I just haven't understood what.

I consider it much more harmful for resale value to parcel plots too small and build houses on them that are also too small, just to shrink single-family homes to a size that people who actually have too little money can "afford":

I do not see it that way. The middle class, if you can even call it that, will never have enough money without inheritance to afford a larger plot near the city. At least that way there remains a terrace and 4 rooms for the family. Most people don't need more, and many are also not willing to spend a lot of time on a large garden. The primary goal is to also do something for retirement provision, because many have difficulties with stocks or similar. The latter would be more sensible, but you do need some experience. It's easier to get a bank loan and put a few hundred euros monthly into a separate account for reserves.

You have to keep that in mind. An income of 100k is nowadays barely sufficient for such projects. (Didn’t someone recently write something about the top 10% at 90k?) A standard semi-detached house + 250 sqm are now beyond 500k here. In the commuter belt around 400k-500k.

Basement not omitted due to a personal attitude, but simply to save the money for house parts not visible above ground level;

I agree with you there, but the 60k+ for a basement is practically the entire outdoor facilities, garage, and interior. What sells better on Instagram?

I think in the future one has to give up single-family houses with large gardens anyway – at least near the city. Keyword: infill development. It’s not how I want to live with a child, but certainly very sensible.

99% of children don't care at all whether they grow up in a 2-room apartment or on a farm. They adapt to pretty much everything and the envy factor regarding a large plot does not exist. The only ones who might not want to live like that are perhaps the parents, but the children don't care.