High construction costs with rising building interest rates

@Arauki You can debate the issue strongly, but still refrain from personal attacks and insults. That's what I would ask of you as well.

Furthermore, you either seem not to read properly or you are imagining things. I am not the thread creator. I am satisfied with both my financial situation and my living situation. I also do not have any existential fear about energy price increases or anything else, as I am quite privileged and anything but disadvantaged. On the one hand, I have worked hard for that, but I am also honest enough to recognize that I had favorable starting conditions beyond that. Strangely, no one admits this here in the forum. In real life, however, all homebuyers of the last 3 years in my circle either received massive financial startup help from their parents or work double shifts and have outsourced a significant share of child-rearing to the grandparents. By the way, I have pitched in myself, so I know what I am talking about when I advocate self-contribution but consider the realistic extent of it to be highly individual.

That is exactly what bothers me about this thread. There are people sitting in their houses that they mostly acquired at more affordable times in the last 5-20 years. Some through hard work, but others simply because they were at the right place at the right time. These saturated people now tell the younger generation, who objectively have it harder according to all statistics, that they should not complain and that it either is due to their laziness or the existing housing stock will do. The demands are simply not supposed to be that high. Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette: If you have no bread, then eat cake. But if it is so easy to create affordable housing through self-contribution, then I have a tip: just do it and create new housing and become landlords. That would do society a favor and also benefit your wallet. Maybe someone will soon retire and look for a task. But since it is all supposed to be so easy, maybe that also works during free time after work. It has become fairly quiet in this forum. The youngest new development areas are soon already quite old.

There is a reason why less and less is being built today and it is simple: it has become too expensive. People can no longer afford it. Neither the loan nor the rent needed for professional investors to do so. Why is that? Primarily, it is not the increased interest rates, which have only long masked some long-term trend. The causes are multifaceted and mono-causal answers are insufficient, even if that seems confusing to you.

It is the refusal of municipalities to designate building land. It is the excessive regulation and bureaucracy, which also manifests itself in internationally comparatively exorbitant purchase costs. It is the high tax burden, which leaves hardly anything net from rising gross wages. It is rising construction costs, partly based on higher self-chosen standards but also on politically desired cost increases. Building is very energy-intensive (as is living in it) and everything that increases energy costs or requires additional technology logically increases building costs. One may see the necessity for energy savings but should also be honest enough that these are not free and therefore for the broad middle class, owning a home as was once taken for granted, especially in rural areas, is no longer possible as it was before. This energy price increase has already happened and will continue. Where it ends is completely open and primarily a political decision. The associated uncertainty is so great for the population that currently, they prefer to do nothing and particularly avoid investments in older properties. And yes, it is also the lower share of self-contribution, which however has to do not only with laziness but also with changed social realities.

In general: we are here in a finance subforum. So if patented solutions are constantly being preached here, it would also be nice if the underlying assumptions were expressed and the claims supported with numbers. How come unnaturally low heating bills occur? Is the heating demand really that low (in which case does an expensive heat pump with an extensive piping system even make sense, or would infrared panels and instant water heaters not be the cheaper, lower-maintenance solution to avoid expensive capital binding and unnecessary embodied energy?) or are other revenues (mea culpa if I am wrong) set off here? You consider a ventilation system with heat recovery financially reasonable? Interesting. I am happy to be convinced by concrete numbers. What does the installation cost in an old building, what in a new one, and what are the potential savings?

One user here has described in detail upon inquiry how he had to adjust his heating to realize his assertion “heat pump also works in old buildings without major renovation” in reality. It would also be interesting to know the total financial investments made, which the imitator can then contrast with the projected savings. Only then does the existing property buyer know roughly what they are getting into. How likely is it, moreover, to find a heating installer who properly adjusts the heating if it hasn’t worked so far? Another remark from me: while the local heat supply has thus been changed, the energy demand of a partially insulated building (basement, roof) is still noticeably higher than in a new building. We should all know how the electricity needed for the heat pump is generated in the winter months and that it is becoming an increasingly expensive, rare commodity. Therefore, it must be feared that the heat pump in old buildings only remains an interim solution and one ultimately ends up with full, expensive facade insulation and therefore would like to see this investment reflected in the purchase price of the existing building because otherwise new construction gains relative attractiveness.

But I will let the thread rest for me. Other things call. I wish the thread creator to draw the right conclusions from the discussion and that he at least gained some insight and that not only the self-congratulation of those who have already made it remained.

But you have already seen the thematic discrepancy, right? The OP earns net about 5000€ together as an average skilled worker! at "early 30s", where you cannot really say that taxes and social contributions eat up the salary to the point that you cannot afford anything anymore. In affordable Lower Saxony, there are plots around 1000sqm at the OP’s location, which including development can be had for under 30,000€, one of which he could get, but he thinks he cannot afford the 3.5% expensive financing for a house. His parents’ generation would have had it easier with financing twice as expensive (he called it 7%) because houses could be built more cheaply. He does not want such a house because he does not recognize the value. We know nothing about sales figures or county. Additional costs are said to always get more expensive, so that with the salary mentioned above one cannot afford living space. And you come here with made-up comforts of privileged and bourgeois users, suggesting becoming landlords and accusing the OP of laziness. Maybe we should come back to the hidden question:

I have the question for many: 1500/month (currently rather more), 500€ additional costs (is that even enough?) Means at least 2000€ fixed per month for housing, rather more. Can that even work well for people?

Yes, it is enough. As already said, not everyone earns as much as you do. However, I also belong to those who say that you should bring home a healthy 5000€ if you currently want to build. In the cheaper district, individually less is enough. You can accommodate the financing somewhat by adjusting your own wishes. Additional costs for gas and electricity are still very affordable for us, the crisis could hit us harder. With some photovoltaics you could catch some of it. Other additional costs exist both as a tenant and as an owner, you pay them directly or indirectly and they must be normally factored in. Reserves are only needed after 10/15 years. Children naturally also need “their” budget, but children’s costs also fall a bit into what is must and what is can. Whoever thinks the child must wear Helly Hansen can buy it at the flea market. Additional costs can be controlled very well there. This also applies to other consumer goods. Many things are possible cheaper without quality loss. Expensive “additional costs” are known to be meat and other groceries, but there are cheaper energy sources even for that. Whoever absolutely needs an expensive piece of meat for his branded grill should not be surprised if his money does not last.

You don’t have that. You’re probably offsetting your government-subsidized feed-in tariff, which has nothing to do with the heating energy needed and primarily occurs in summer. In winter, it hardly covers any electricity for your heat pump at all, because the low yield then goes toward other household electricity. Just for hot water, it already takes 25 euros of electricity per month (okay, sunny months are included) or does your family always shower cold? By the way, I also live in an energy efficiency class A property... So I definitely have a point of comparison. Double living space remains double living space, even if it’s, of course, more efficient.

Well, I know the electricity consumption of my heat pump. Multiplied by the electricity price of just over 25 cents per kWh, I even calculate the heating costs in my head.
So no – I haven’t even considered the self-generated electricity, otherwise the heating costs would be even lower.
For 120 sqm, I am well under 1,500 kWh electricity consumption for hot water and heating. That’s the advantage if you don’t use an off-the-shelf heating solution but rather a professional external heating planning.

But even if that were actually the case in your case: have you ever calculated what the facade insulation, the ventilation with heat recovery, the photovoltaic system (which, by the way, costs insurance annually, even the smart meter is mandatory), and the heat pump have cost you in total? You will never get that back during their lifetime. The opportunity costs of the tied-up capital alone are higher than 200 euros monthly. Economically, it will never add up.

Yes, I have.
- Ventilation about €2,350
- HP €3,700 including 300-liter hot water storage plus piping/floor heating
- External thermal insulation composite system almost €10,000 (but that is the entire ETICS made of Resol + perimeter insulation for my two-family house / so actually lower if I were insulating just a small house)
The insurance for photovoltaic costs €5 per month.
It was a major renovation, now almost KfW 40. Oil consumption before was about €2,500 per year (for the entire house).

Of course, if the CO2 price skyrockets as feared in the worst-case scenarios and heating costs actually multiply, then there will eventually be a financial breakeven.

Good that my breakeven already occurs after just a few years.
Besides, the living quality is completely different, which you simply cannot compensate for with money. And all that with a clear conscience regarding the environment.

Without having read the entire thread... we are in a similar situation and are now building a 103sqm bungalow. Lots of personal work. Financing calculated over 30 years (fixed for 10 years) 2100€ monthly. But we don't want children and don't take vacations. It's tough, but it depends on the expectations one has. Theoretically, despite the high rate, we should still be able to save quite a bit to pay off the loan early.

Friends of ours pay 1400€ rent for a new 100sqm semi-detached house in a similar situation. But the rent increases, so I prefer to pay more right away and have my own land and house. Unfortunately, our friends don't even have that choice with their income.

I’ll leave your purchase prices as they are – apparently, I am a bad buyer because I ended up closer to a factor of 10.

What I would like to classify, however, is the amount of energy needed for hot water. Of course, you could also shower cold or only for 30 seconds (a matter of taste), then it might work out. Here’s the calculation:

Water has a specific heat capacity of 4.18 J/(gram * kelvin). That means I need 4.18J to heat 1 gram of water by 1 kelvin. Let’s assume the incoming cold water is 15 degrees and needs to be heated to 40 degrees tap temperature, so by 25 kelvin. That means you need 4.18J * 1000 * 25 = 104,500 J to heat one liter of water by 25 kelvin. The first Google search result (Viessmann) shows that on average, 40 liters of hot water per person per day is assumed. In plain language: 58,400 liters of hot water for a family of four per year, or 6.1 billion joules, or converted: 1695 kWh just for hot water. How you want to manage with 1500 kWh total consumption including heating in the KfW 40 standard remains your secret. Of course, you still have to consider the efficiency of the heat pump, since it is not an immersion heater. What’s clear is: especially with line-fed hot water supply, there is a lot of waste and therefore efficiency losses. The higher efficiency of the heat pump compared to the instantaneous heater is paid for with massive line losses (in fact, we pay about the same for hot water with a heat pump as before with an instantaneous heater), the longer the line, the greater the loss. Also, the efficiency of the heat pump suffers with domestic water, because depending on comfort requirements, you can easily run the heating at 30–35 degrees but you don’t want to shower at that temperature. At least: in the summer half-year, hot water works very well from your own photovoltaic system.

Now I leave showering habits to each user, but I think this calculation is an important classification. Maybe we are just wasteful (even though we already undercut the Viessmann figure significantly), but even with KfW 55 we come to multiples of your values.

I'll leave your purchase prices as they are - apparently I am a bad buyer, because I ended up more around factor 10.

Then just ask how I arrive at the prices for the renovation...

Now I leave the showering behavior to each user, but I find this calculation important for classification. Maybe we are just wasteful too (even though we already undercut the Viessmann specification significantly), but even with KfW 55 we come to multiples of your values.

KfW 55 is also only a calculated number.

The higher efficiency of the heat pump compared to the instantaneous water heater is paid for with massive line losses.

As with any central domestic hot water preparation. But you can also plan well and insulate pipes. For example, dispensing with circulation.

In plain language: 58,400 liters of hot water for a family of four per year or 6.1 billion joules or converted: 1695 kWh just for hot water.

You calculated very well (whether the calculation method etc. is okay, others may verify). But unfortunately, you did not think it through to the end. For 1,695 kWh of required energy, however, I only need about +/- 450 kWh of electricity with the heat pump (my own consumption for hot water), which corresponds to a factor of only 3.77. This is due to the fact that the heat pump naturally delivers poor performance figures in winter when preparing hot water.

Maybe we are just wasteful too (even though we already undercut the Viessmann specification significantly), but even with KfW 55 we come to multiples of your values.

By the way, I am a part-time father with three daughters whose hobby is our three horses, which leads to immense water consumption whenever they are at my place.

but even with KfW 55 we come to multiples of your values.

Then in the end there is probably only one conclusion: Poorly planned and/or operating system. If you have multiple times my electricity consumption, e.g., three times for hot water, your heat pump actually only works like an immersion heater like an instantaneous water heater. Because then you have only a COP of just over 1.
THAT would worry me much more.

P.S. By the way, I also have a second heat pump running in the rental property with similar values. So I'm pretty sure I am reading it correctly.