House Building Forum - Would you buy or build a house again?

I am also firmly convinced that in most cases it is economically pointless to build, and you are better off renting and investing elsewhere.

BUT: I still built, and would do it again. For us, almost nothing went badly, and the little things that didn’t go well were quickly fixed.

The most important thing: The feeling of living in your own home is great. We had a similarly sized rental house before... but now it is a new world for us. (Almost) all the work around the house suddenly becomes fun, you built it exactly the way you want it. And all this without discussions with a landlord or even homeowner association.

Flexibility: I am also in a job where we as a whole family will, with a high probability, go abroad for a few years 1-2 more times in our lives and want to. Where is the problem? In my case, the employer even covers the costs, but even if not... in our situation the house rents out within a few hours... Building a house does not mean you have to live there your whole life. Sure, changing houses multiple times costs more than renting due to all the additional costs involved in buying, but I also change my car regularly, probably knowing that continuing to drive the old one would be cheaper. Quality of life!

The only question, Tego, is whether you ever get the house back after renting it out the way you handed it over. And I would argue that is not the case. That makes it worthwhile to consider selling before going abroad. Because even abroad, you probably don't want to constantly have tenants calling you because x or y isn't working. Or, how do you see it?

We would build again. We have now been living in the house for 18 months and apart from the roller shutters had no warranty or guarantee issues. The construction itself proceeded without major conflicts.

Our house is our very own luxury, the car parks in front of the door, we decide whether the heating is on summer or winter time. The groceries only have to be carried up 2 steps. No housing community we have to consider, no risk of a 10% rent increase every year...

The list can go on like this. The monthly burden (including reserves for the house) amounts to 1/3 of our income, and I can live with that.

There was a very nuanced response to my thesis. I don’t want to withhold a reply.

But where do I "save" more consistently? When paying off the house or with a freely chosen amount into my account during the rental period?

You can also "force" yourself to save in other ways than with the single-family house. A savings plan via standing order, immediately moved away from the checking account right after the salary is credited. Where to, is another discussion.

My parents are now in their mid-50s and have paid off their house. Now they have 90% of their salary available to save and to live it up.

That’s a matter of perspective. You find 90% of the salary good in your mid-50s? Ok! But that also means, conversely, that no (or few) profitable investments were made that would lift someone beyond the 100% mark of an employee’s salary after two-thirds of life. And that despite compound interest effects that could have been leveraged for 30 years. Please don’t get me wrong: Surely, it’s enough. But compared even to conservative wealth accumulation over such a period, it’s not "good."

Paragraph one, that’s mine. If I’m debt-free in five years and retire then, I will have about 4000 gross and a paid-off house. My wife is younger, she still earns 1000 with her part-time job, I don’t understand why that wouldn’t be considered retirement provision.

Your case, Karsten, is somewhat different. Built late, small and inexpensive, paid off quickly. You are not comparable to young homebuilders financing on credit for 20-30 years out in the sticks. During retirement, you’ll have something small, easy to maintain, and new(!) that certainly won’t show signs of aging before you do.

Rural, urban... who wants to live in the city with all the stress, dirt, buses and trains full of pizza trash, Macdoof ketchup and beer cans [...]

And what about those who have to work in the city? I’m one of those. Every morning from my pretty country estate into the traffic jam and the same again in the evening, then completely frustrated and exhausted missing out on the enjoyment moments of my rural idyll, every working day? To compensate, a huge chunk of capital tied up? No fucking way!

Basically you’re right, but when I see how the rents currently are and what competition there is among tenants, I’m glad to be a property owner.

What do you think, how glad the landlords are?

And nothing is happening at all in social housing construction. Only exclusive new buildings are being erected.

That’s due to the erotic relationship our political clowns have with the balanced budget (black zero), zero taxes for corporations, and generally the zeitgeist of considering everything left-wing and socialist where the state does something itself instead of yielding to private interests.

And always the argument about moving around being freer, well, I come from the metal sector and within a 50 km radius there’s everything here, so no move is definitively necessary.

That’s a hugely important point, why I harp on flexibility so much: Do you believe that in the next 20 years (let’s assume a financing runs that long), the working world will not change drastically and things that are taken for granted today could disappear?

I love our house. Because of that, so many things have become easier. Kid has too much energy? Out into the garden. I feel like I’m putting on weight? Out into the garden. My husband lounges on the couch… out into the garden
We now have everything on one level and more space. The house fits 95% to our needs. A friend recently said you can tell how proud we are of our house and how happy.

Our house is our very own personal luxury,

These are THE reasons to do it, aside from economic considerations.

our rate, which is, however, significantly below the rent

You say nothing about the equity contributed; therefore, this comparison cannot be assessed. My experience as a tenant of several apartments and a single-family house and now as an owner of a single-family house is that I would always have been better off with renting; also in terms of the monthly burden. At some point, one distant day, this may change and I can "live off" my house if circumstances allow.

That also means, conversely, that no (or few) profitable investments have been made that would raise someone above the 100% mark of their employee salary after 2/3 of their life. And that despite compound interest effects that could have been enjoyed for 30 years. Please don't get me wrong: Sure, it's enough. But compared to even conservative wealth building over such a period, it's not "good".

It's always the question of where one places priority in life: If you want to inherit a lot (which then 95% will be wasted by one of the next 2-3 generations), then you should certainly invest as well as possible (a single-family house certainly does not count as part of that). If you are saving for some big goal (maybe the giant yacht for retirement and put that above everything), then you can do that too.

But many people rather have the goal of maximizing their quality of life over their lifetime. Ownership is a very decisive step for many in that regard, as it allows (with the exception of flexibility) a living comfort that otherwise cannot be achieved.

I don't want a Dacia, nor a 37-inch TV, and I also like to fly further away occasionally. Likewise, when it comes to housing, I want to realize what I find great.