Is house planning realistic at all?

, I don’t know if that is really the case at the moment... in general, it is an unwritten truth – that is, quality of life and the pressure to save something.

However, we also have interest expenses of under €400 (no equity went into the house, exclusively into the land) – the rest goes into the repayment. A tolerable apartment (not comparable to the house) would cost around €1000 cold rent here – so €600 more. If you mentally depreciate the house over 70 years to zero, that costs an additional €360 per month in depreciation (300,000 €/70/12) – leaving €240 per month.

So we have an "investment" of 7800 in rent for a lousy living experience with cheap furnishings without chance of change, poor insulation, living in cramped space and annoying neighbors. You pay this if you don’t buy until the end of your life. Plus here and there a rent increase.

Pffh, there are also other apartments than crappy ones. And there are other landlords than the greedy ones with teeth.
The original poster (OP) bought an apartment for rental himself: I think one should not accuse him or other landlords of immorality.
In older properties one usually lives cheaper and can also change things like tiles or kitchen oneself. Often these investments are also offset against the rent. That is often the case if you happen to rent from a private landlord.
Conversely, comfort is created by renting a nearly new apartment or even a new building: then even changes to the floor plan are possible. And honestly: nobody forces you to move into a hole or an apartment in need of renovation.
I find your view very rose-colored or very one-sided – based on your own experiences. I do not see neutrality as advice or orientation aid for the OP.

With ownership I have endless space, my car is not parked on the street, a garden, neighbors at a distance, I can do whatever I want in house and garden and I pay just half (initially!) for pure living compared to the tiny, ugly rental apartment.

That is probably true: the quality of life increases, at least it should. But most houses are still built on very tight plots, the second car has to be shuffled or parked on the street – no, not in our case either, but you have to look at all new buildings and not only your own individual case.
Not rarely do builders pay more on the loan than on rent!

And if we are honest:

At the moment real estate prices are exploding here.

Where exactly do you build a 200 sqm house + land + garage for 665 EUR?

That’s why you didn’t build! And bought an exploding property?
From what I remember, your house was a bargain… And at least half of the houses in our forum community will be sold "below value" in 30 years... or should I say: at the value they then have: paid off for 30 years and then only the land value remains…

Those who financed their house build tightly will not have enough money in 10-year increments to properly maintain the house. It starts with silicone joints and ends with window replacement. We probably don’t need to consider insulation anymore.

No offense, Elina, but you can’t always just see your one-sided view when the rose-colored glasses are not taken off because of the gained quality of life: other people can also achieve quality of life differently – that has to be viewed individually.

The interest portion, that is what is lost, keeps on decreasing and at 60 I won’t pay anything anymore.

Let’s hope so. But it can also go differently: in 10 years, no longer able to do shift work due to illness, no more bonuses, then possibly no longer physically able to maintain the house oneself. And who wants to own and maintain 200 sqm from an uncertain time??? May be optimum for you now, but in the long run???

Where was the advantage of renting now – I can’t find it.

It’s mobility: moving costs – but only a fraction of what you otherwise pay for owning your own house. You can calmly rent your suitable living space and change it as needed. And there are also nice apartments. And about choosing neighbors: everyone should consider if they themselves weren’t the unpleasant tenant.

Now you have a house that ages, must be maintained with your money, and in the end you move out into a senior apartment at a loss

I agree! As a photographer watching the real estate market because I work for agents, I must say: the older generation will certainly not sell their property for the price the appraisal shows. Usually too much has to be invested. Those built before the 80s either have a backlog of repairs or if not, look terrible. The younger generation (e.g. divorce houses) often has outdated equipment – very few currently want light green sanitary fittings or a closed kitchen.
...

Otherwise I’m not very keen on tearing apart your wrong calculation now. Most builders here lie to themselves anyway and make their ownership look good.

Me neither ...

Hello,

Of course, you can now move into a large, beautiful luxury apartment with upscale furnishings. But then the rent isn’t €650 cold but €1200 cold.

And most likely you can’t handle the "DIY jobs" by the landlord you described right now.

So with a nice apartment, the calculation looks even more sh***y.
I don’t believe in depreciation of our house now. At the moment, real estate prices here are exploding. Senior apartment won’t happen - never again an apartment.

To understand, you also have to be willing to throw your prejudices overboard.

As a tenant of a "decent" apartment, I have all the freedoms I could wish for; Yvonne described this very well. Whether I waste, fritter away or actually save the mental savings compared to ownership has nothing to do with it for the time being. If something breaks, the landlord (owner) has to take care of it – and no, the maximum amount that you as a tenant have to contribute is very well regulated by law. There are numerous judgments that prove this and put a stop to "crafty" landlords. The money that is called rent secures my home – whether it is cozy is entirely up to me; whether I get along with the neighborhood, too. But it is never money thrown away senselessly!

We live in a self-used old building – whether it will serve as a calculable reserve for our children when we eventually pass on, I dare to doubt. Because until that time, we reliably put money in every year, as the substance will remain forever old. Even if old houses have their undisputed charm, everyone must know that it is also a barrel with a leaky bottom. When you are "done in the front," you start again "in the back"; if I roughly estimate what we have invested since ’83, I get dizzy. I will not get this money back when selling.

Our children are pressing us hard to realize a joint new build, and they have very good arguments for it. At the moment, we rather see ourselves (again) as tenants, with the option to purchase help if needed. Honestly, I am curious myself what will eventually come of it; but the discussion here rather encourages us to stick to our considerations. Even though I certainly do not share Steffen80’s view on banks and sellers, I agree with him that I gladly pay rent (have paid it before) and that the meaning & purpose of ownership can only be explained in the heads of the respective owners. Financially, it doesn’t add up; not with "just" one property.

I don’t see any rental advantages at all. Even if interest rates rise again, you can’t compare the 70 sqm apartment with the 200 sqm house. I currently have half the housing costs with a living space three times as large. Plus garden and garage. We certainly couldn’t afford to rent something like this. But as ownership, it fits easily.

The time will come when a 200 sqm house no longer fits, when gardening only becomes a nuisance, and understandably no child volunteers to take over the work – more than rudimentarily – for oneself. Just by the way.

You cannot compare your rented apartment with your house now; not even with a house of comparable size. In the rental apartment, you were exclusively a tenant – free to move at any time, free from maintenance burdens as well as property tax. In your house now, you will have to bear 100% of all costs as long as you live in it. And as described above, it does not stop requiring you to invest money – unless you have torn down and renewed everything except the facade.

And even though real estate prices are exploding, you always have to take into account the age of the property. This calculation will never turn out in your favor if you ever want/need to sell the house; unless you own a piece of land on the Kö/the Zeil or the Ku’damm.

And on the subject of tenants living carefree
In my previous 18 years of experience as a main tenant .....

If you have always rented at the lowest limit, I am not surprised. Of course, you can always come across the wrong ones, but the chance is rather low with a reasonable price/performance ratio. Landlords are also interested in their property generating the desired return; that doesn’t usually work with dumps.

Rhenish regards

Quote: Rate for the house of 665 euros. For that we have 200 sqm, 700 sqm land and 2 garages

Then you must have had a lot of equity. Where exactly do you build a 200 sqm house + land + garage for 665 EUR? Otherwise, I don't really feel like dissecting your wrong calculation now. Most builders here lie to themselves anyway and sugarcoat their property. The fact is: in the vast majority of cases, ownership is not a profitable business but exclusively increases quality of life!

We had 7,000 euros equity, which was just enough for the additional purchase costs. So it was not a new build. With such a case the calculation looks quite different, but the topic was not "new build" but "ownership."

ypg of course my opinion is based on my own experiences, on what else would it be
No, the apartment itself was not a shabby old hole but relatively new from the 90s and also okay, but white bathroom, textured wallpaper, and laminate flooring, everything I hate. It didn’t have any particularly great features, was average. And yet it was as expensive as our house is today. Yes, I already wrote above that you can also move into great, large, beautiful apartments. But we couldn’t afford that, I already found the cold rent of 650 euros outrageously expensive and there was nothing cheaper if you want a bathroom inside the apartment.
I see absolutely no advantage in renting, only disadvantages upon disadvantages. The so highly praised flexibility leads only to enormous costs. If you really want to make use of your option to move from one rental apartment to another, it costs moving, renovation, possibly a realtor each time. So you want to avoid that. So the advantage of flexibility is reduced to the theoretical possibility of moving.
And what is left then?

Building expert, but as a tenant you are not exempt from property tax. I have had the property tax (even higher than now) included in the utility bill for every apartment, as probably every other tenant has as well.

ypg of course my view is based on my own experiences, what else would it be based on

Sure, but it doesn't hurt to look beyond your own horizon more often

To be honest, I find it a bit "strange" to read posts like yours in a question like this one, where the income (very likely) does not currently allow for financing.
The promotion of quality of life through homeownership can certainly be supported if the OP is in a good financial position but has doubts.