House purchase built in 1995 vs. new construction long-term cost calculation

But it is significantly more realistic with full scope award than trying to do two bathrooms with it.

I also get invoices for bathroom renovations of rental properties or commercial buildings on my desk. Under normal standard conditions, you can renovate quite a lot of a bathroom for 15,000. Of course, if I completely change the floor plan and install everything that is modern and expensive, like oversized tiles, high-end fittings in trendy colors, double sinks from the bathroom specialist trade, walk-in tiled shower, freestanding bathtub, etc., then 15,000 euros are certainly not the end of the line.
I just wanted to say that for 15,000 you can realistically have a main bathroom renovated. And it doesn’t have to cost 18,000 or more for standard.

How important is the latest living standard to you, I would still ask myself that?

In the end, we chose new construction because we wanted amenities like
- LAN sockets and enough power outlets in all rooms
- underfloor heating throughout the house
- controlled residential ventilation and air conditioning

such things are only difficult to retrofit in existing buildings. If you can well do without that, I think a house from 1995 doesn’t sound bad.
In the total cost comparison, you might also want to consider that a house newly built in 2023 probably has a different market value in 15-20 years than a house built in 1995, even if there is no renovation backlog.
For many buyers that is also an emotional thing. Take a look at the current price differences on portals between older existing buildings and buildings from 2010 onwards – even some with gas boilers. The differences are huge and, to my understanding, cannot be nearly explained by the building fabric and condition alone. At least that’s how it is in our region.

Such a value difference potentially becomes interesting if you later think about selling in old age. Then you might be able to recoup the 200k difference, depending on the market situation then (crystal ball). But that doesn’t help you if you’d rather travel more in your younger years. Definitely a legitimate wish.

Personally, I would depend that on how important which part of life is to me. So how important are living standards / modern technology / equipment, how “intensively” do I live – am I more the Konmari and interior design type and enjoy my living space as a kind of hobby, or is a house more functional for me? And how important is vacationing / everyday comfort / eating out and “spending money” (not meant derogatorily) to you in return?

I propose the bold thesis that in 40 years a 70-year-old house will not be significantly less valuable (+-50k) than a 40-year-old house. Because who knows what will be the most current, regenerative, and best way to build houses in 40 years (in terms of materials and heating type).

Of course, with a water-based heating system, replacing the heat generator is the smaller problem. And when it comes to energy values, we have slowly reached the limits of physics. Less than passive house is not possible. If you look at the fact that buildings have gone from >200 to now a maximum allowed 35 kWh/sqm, there won’t be much more progress. It’s slowly no longer worthwhile anyway. Like so many things in life, energy saving is an 80/20 problem and gets increasingly difficult towards the extreme. You can see that here too. The €300 less energy per month sounds great at first. But €170k more loan at 3.5% is €500 per month. Just in that respect, it doesn’t pay off and you can also renovate the existing property for less money.

And yes, it may be that another material will be trendy in 30 years. Currently, straw and clay are totally in. But that is a niche topic. The vast majority either build solidly or "with wood" in the sense of wooden beam constructions with double-layered insulation mats.

PS: a big advantage for existing properties is also that they are already finished. A new build usually takes about 2 years with planning lead time.

Sure, you're right. Our current houses are already at their limits. And I would definitely be in favor of existing houses. The stress you have during a construction phase (from incorrectly placed sockets to even more serious problems). I was so relieved that the builder was not insolvent in the end and that everything was finished on time without major defects. Not having this underlying tension is also nice. Although with a new build, of course, you can choose everything yourself. That has its appeal.

I would also tend to go for the existing house. For 2 times a week working from home, you can also use the basement. Besides, I find the rate for the new build simply very high, if someone gets slightly off track job-wise, it gets tight. Although 170sqm with garage etc. in the new build is of course also really generous.