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

I put forward 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 the most current, regenerative, and best way to build a house will be in 40 years (in terms of materials and heating systems).

For your retirement provision, it is definitely three times better to acquire property now. I would never even dream of such an idea. Rents will rise and your installment remains constant. I would definitely tend to the existing house. With the new build, you are easily 200k above the existing price with renovation costs. Because with new builds, there are always additional costs (upgrading, house connections, soil survey, etc.). With the existing house, you have now struck while the iron is hot, and 1995 I find perfectly okay in terms of age. You have good building substance. And with a basement, there is enough space. And if a room is missing. When building a house, there is always a compromise. Everyone who ever finds a room, the plot in the new build, or the price or location not optimal. There is always something. Otherwise, you never find anything and always stay in the rental apartment. And the price also seems really fair to me, if it’s not the flattest land (only nowhere in a 30 km radius). And you don’t want to become landlords in your own house. Then you have to argue with those people, too. This living situation would already be unbearable for me. Therefore: buy the existing house and be happy. That’s fate.

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

In the end, we chose a new build because we like to have amenities such as
- 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 do without that well, I think a house from 1995 doesn't sound bad.
When comparing total costs, you might also want to consider that a house newly built in 2023 will presumably have a different market value in 15-20 years than a house built in 1995, even if there is no renovation backlog.
For many buyers, this 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 those with gas boilers. The differences are huge and, in my understanding, cannot be nearly explained by the building fabric and condition alone. At least in our region, this is the case.

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

Personally, I would depend that on how important which part of life is to me. So how important is living standard / modern technology / equipment, how "intensively" do I live – am I rather the KonMari and interior type who enjoys the living space like a kind of hobby, or is a house more functional for me? And how important are vacation / daily comfort / eating out and "spending money" (not meant pejoratively) to you in return.

How important is the most current housing standard to you right now, I would still ask myself that?

In the end, we chose a new build because we like to have conveniences such as
- LAN sockets and sufficient 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 do without that well, I think the house from 1995 doesn't sound bad. When comparing total costs, you should perhaps also consider that a house newly built in 2023 probably has a different market value in 15-20 years overall than a house built in 1995, even if there is no backlog of renovation. This is also an emotional thing for many buyers. Take a look at the current price differences on portals between older existing buildings and buildings from 2010 onwards - even those with a gas boiler. The differences are drastic and, in my understanding, cannot be explained even remotely by the pure building fabric and condition. At least it is like that in our region.

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

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

Although with a water-based heating system, replacing the heat generator is of course the smaller problem. And as far as energy values are concerned, we have slowly reached the limits of physics. Less than passive house is not possible. When you look at the fact that buildings have gone from >200 to the now maximum allowed 35 kWh/sqm, not much more will happen there. It’s slowly no longer worthwhile anyway. Like many things in life, energy saving is an 80/20 problem and becomes increasingly difficult at the extreme. You can see that here, too. €300 less energy per month sounds great at first. But €170k more credit at 3.5% means €500 per month. In that regard alone, it does not pay off, and you can also renovate an existing property for less money.

And yes, it may be that in 30 years another material will be trendy. 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 including planning lead time.

My "better" half and I, both in our early 30s, no children (one planned) have the option to buy a single-family house: