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

So I have now bought the second house, renovated it, and moved in. And I would do it again. Through personal effort, it was relatively inexpensive. The land alone is worth at least 1/3 of the total price. Then there are already garages, the garden is laid out, etc. And I would do it again. A house is almost never cheap. But due to the relatively low total price, we set a very comfortable rate that would at least be required for renting. That means we live with slightly higher additional costs and the maintenance reserve, which you should always plan as an owner. And it is simply pleasant. It is luxury and a hobby. You have to like it. Renting is relatively carefree. Apart from the feeling of putting money in a stranger's pocket, you have your monthly costs and the rest is disposable. No faucet needs to be replaced, the landlord takes care of everything. But it never belongs to you. That was not for me. Going into my garden, drilling a hole in my wall, and being able to do whatever I want are basics for me to feel comfortable. And it is good to live there even in old age. Without installments, without forced renovations that drive up the rent, etc., etc.

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

Of course, we have also invested a lot of equity, but we have now received a corresponding value in return. The money is just not as liquid as before.

Due to a lot of personal work, I even believe that we could sell the house again for significantly more than the acquisition costs. Similarly sized houses with land here go for 50,000 euros more than we paid for everything. And those are 20-30 years old.

The topic somehow gets lost, it is not about the pros and cons of building a house versus renting an apartment, but whether one wants to put up again with the dirt, the stress, and the burden in general.

One can just as well argue why only the owner profits from rents in metropolitan areas, because they have the best investment compared to the tenant and the home builder.

Is saving money more effective somewhere else than in home ownership? No. Because all financial jugglers forget something. The property is on land. Land, like gold, is non-increasable. And land retains its value regardless of the currency.

The value retention of land is not given by its scarcity, but by its location. In metropolitan areas, it is scarce with increasing demand. However, basically, only about 4% of Germany is built upon. Land is not generally always in demand; it is in demand in certain places. It is not scarce overall.

Moreover, "value retention" alone does not make a good investment if I can invest "value-increasingly" elsewhere. Surely, it can also be worse.

I go as far as to say that with free financial resources, it is smarter to buy 10 hectares of arable land and lease it out despite a 1.8% return than to invest in stocks.

If you want to buy where land will really have secure value increases of significant amounts, you have to already be a millionaire. With pure arable land, you speculate on a rezoning to building land. If that does not happen, you sit on capital invested at 1.8%. With stocks, you earn 8%, with real estate (because leveraged with debt) you earn from 20% down to the single digits. And with real estate, you have land that is already building land!

Therefore, I do not find that very smart.

If I want something that retains value, I would buy mechanical watches from well-known manufacturers. They consistently retain their value against any inflation and are not even dependent on precious metal prices. No yield, but maximum value stability.

I think one should also think beyond oneself. I always tell the children, we, mom and dad, will leave you something. We gladly do. Not that we forgo everything, but something may gladly remain. Increase it. For your children etc., we are a tribe, a clan, more than just individuals. We will continue to live in you.

I find that highly sympathetic, though. Top.

If you want to buy where land will really have secure significant value increases, you have to be a millionaire beforehand. With pure farmland, you are speculating on a rezoning to building land. If that doesn’t happen, you’re stuck with capital that you invested at 1.8%. With stocks you make 8%, with real estate (because it is leveraged with borrowed capital) you make from 20% up to the double digits. And with real estate you have land that is already building land!

That’s why I don’t find it so smart.

Apparently, you don’t understand much about farmland....Ha price has increased by more than a third over the last 10 years with over 50 soil points. Land also has value for building on, not just for building. Really, it’s like that. K.

I also don't understand anything about farmland and its value development in recent years. But that land is not scarce, I consider that, sorry, complete nonsense. Wait a few more years, then all the land on Earth will no longer be sufficient to feed the ever-growing number of people with ever more meat. Above all, the fertile German land is extremely rare – at least rare compared to the needs of modern civilization. And then look at the forecasts for migration in the coming decades, away from the expanding deserts, into fertile areas like Germany. (OT: This will still be a huge "fun" with all the nice people here who think "mine mine mine, go starve in your Africa!"). You also can't just keep turning more and more land into building land – at least I, as a friend of untouched nature, would be against doing that.