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

I am with Nordlys on that. Also, WALD is still worth considering and a very good long-term investment if you know what you're doing and can wait 30 years or buy it for the children.

Make yourself aware of how the two large organizations that have survived centuries, even millennia, invest their assets. I mean the two churches. How many wars, disasters, currencies, inflations, waves of plague have they survived! By concentrating their assets in land that they manage themselves, monasteries, leasing it out. Granting it as hereditary lease to house builders. Karsten

So, we bought an apartment 5 years ago and started building this year.

Would I do it again? No and yes.
The apartment was kind of a quick shot. We got it at a good price, today we would probably get 100k+ more. Still, it didn’t make us happy. HOA, annoying neighbors and so on.

Build a house again? As of now, yes... so far we’ve only had minor issues. It was actually quite fun.
So far I would just do more myself [emoji4]

I would completely agree with that!!! Most builders lie to themselves especially when it comes to the topic of wealth building!

I would rather lose 50% of the value of a house in which I can live independently than 50% with some stocks....

We bought a small old building and renovated it mostly ourselves. That was exhausting but also nice. We have only been living in the house for a short time, but we think it’s great and would do it again. It only costs us 200€ more than the rent before. The children have space, we have a great garden and are no longer dependent on anyone or have to be very considerate. We have a house in a prime location, whose value will surely have doubled in 10 years. We also have great neighbors. Nevertheless, you have to make compromises. Nothing is without a catch. More work, more costs, etc.

You can’t just keep turning more and more land into building land without more consideration – at least, as a friend of untouched nature, I would be against doing that.

It was about farmland. Besides, I implicitly agreed with you regarding the building land by writing the following:

The value retention of land is not due to its scarcity, but due to its location.

Continuing with Karsten

Apparently, you don’t understand much about farmland... The price per hectare has increased by about one third in the last 10 years at more than 50 soil points. Land also has value for development, not just for building. Really, it’s like that. K.

I would have to counter that this does not fit with what I wanted to say. It was about wealth accumulation through the exponential effects of interest and compound interest, or reinvested gains. With farmland you reinvest: nothing.

Otherwise, 35% in 10 years is exactly 3% per year when calculated exponentially back. Minus inflation then. That is certainly value-retaining, but measured against what I was talking about, it’s not impressive in terms of growth.

I found the following somewhat cynical and it annoyed me:

Realize how the two big organizations that have survived centuries, even millennia, invest their wealth. I mean the two churches. How many wars, catastrophes, currencies, inflations, waves of plague they have survived! Because they concentrate their wealth in land that they themselves cultivate, monasteries, lease it out. They give it as hereditary lease to house builders. Karsten

The land has “survived” so many wars because it was seized by the churches in those very wars in the first place. Either directly, or indirectly by being bought with stolen money. Or extorted through the sale of indulgences, also rather indirectly via money. Of course, whoever could make his own laws hundreds of years ago could legalize any outrage. And once grass has grown over it, no one crows about it anymore? Seems so... I can’t accept that as an argument. They also only “built up” wealth before they became land occupiers... uh – owners. That’s what I was talking about. I find my method more humane!

(Anyway, I find it strange this example comes from you, where I would have rather assigned you to the liberal camp!?)

I would rather lose 50% of the value of a house in which I can live independently than 50% with some stocks...

I fully agree. If anything, better like that. But no one sets out to lose .