House financially feasible at about 5,000 net?

Won't new construction and renovation always meet at roughly the same price level anyway? In my opinion, the market should automatically regulate itself that way.

The difficult ones are always the houses that are not really completely worn out yet (well-maintained 80s houses, for example). Such houses, which some people would move into with a bit of new paint, but other people would immediately plan a complete renovation for. Only here does the purchase price plus renovation become more expensive than new construction, otherwise rather not.

Won't new construction and renovation always end up at about the same price level anyway? In my opinion, the market would automatically regulate itself like that.

I would even argue that with comparable prices, new construction is better. The standard is simply higher, see also the discussion in the Ökohaus thread. The problem is that you can't simply avoid high prices for existing properties by building new. Finding a plot of land is one of the biggest hurdles in house construction ;) In addition, the real estate market is what you would call rather "inefficient." Stock markets, for example, are considered quite efficient: every stock is the same, prices are public, transaction costs are low, the research effort is the same whether you buy 1 share or a million shares, (for large companies) there is always a lot of trading. This makes it difficult to gain an informational advantage. Real estate is very different. Every property is different, every user is different, properties are mostly traded individually with around 10% transaction costs, trading is rare, and the actual prices achieved are not public. Accordingly, the market processes information much more slowly and with the constantly changing framework conditions...

I would even claim that with comparable prices, a new build is better.

Well, first define better. I could only have gotten a new build at the same price in the countryside. But my cool city location beats everything I could have gotten more of in the countryside, like for example a controlled residential ventilation system in the new build. I can't follow your real estate vs. stock market efficiency apples-to-oranges argument. You completely ignore the return opportunities.

Exactly, of course the standard is better in a new building. But almost always the location is better in an old building, and usually the plots are larger as well. And the theory that renovating a 60s-70s shack would be more expensive than a new build just can't add up. It's exactly as says, the prices adjust so that it balances out. Otherwise, no one would buy and renovate old houses. The advantage of renovation is that the time and financial pressure isn't as high. Everything is there to begin with, even if old. This is especially clear with the outdoor facilities. You can also save for 1-2 years until you have the money together for new windows or the roof or the heating. You can also do a lot yourself at your own pace. You can see who buys such things anyway. These are people who aren't clumsy. They then bring the places up to scratch for a relatively modest sum and with a lot of sweat and become happy in them or sell them on for a profit and buy the next property. But it will never be a new building, of course, that's the disadvantage.

We are not talking about comparing cities to rural areas with my calculations, but rather about different rural locations. The bubble prices have long since reached the countryside; you can hardly find a house for under 400k anymore. Sure, they have a bigger plot of land, and of course, I would like an extra 300 sqm, but I don’t find the difference between 700 sqm (like we have) and 1000 sqm as crucial as the difference between 400 and 700 sqm. We didn’t even look at houses in truly urban locations; on the one hand, I’m not a fan of cities (too many people packed together, and we hardly ever use typical city things like the cinema anyway), and on the other hand, it simply isn’t worth paying a high premium for an urban location.

The advantage of renovation is that there isn’t as much time and financial pressure.

That depends. In some of the houses, there was still a really old oil burner that had to be removed quickly after the sale because it was mandatory. Then you involuntarily open the can of worms with heating renovation. Or the pipes are old enough to suffer from copper corrosion. Sure, you can still postpone that for 5 or 10 years, but basically, you want to break open the walls and repair before you live in the house. And it drags on like that if you don’t want to live on the construction site for years. But then I’m comparing apples to oranges. A renovation is certainly financially a great thing if you are a jack-of-all-trades (or know some), have a lot of time, live very close by, or have no problem living on the construction site. For us, who looked about 40 km away and have a small child, it’s not an equivalent alternative. Then you have to commission the renovation, and then it’s no longer cheap.

An alternative to an existing house is the building gap in the existing area, possibly with a demolition-ready old building. It can be in a quite good location, is usually more generously proportioned than the "Par"Zellen" in new development areas, and can also be obtained cheaply if you ask around and "Klinken putzt".