KFW 40 plus / Energy-efficient building with clinker?

KFW 40 Plus for rental definitely pays off according to our architect.
The additional effort is covered by the subsidies, and of course I can also charge higher rents for the low-energy house..

Really? I don’t see that with my clients - who build dozens or even hundreds of units at once - but only "normal" buildings. The additional effort is not worth it.

And why can you charge higher rents? You have an advantage if you can advertise with (on paper) low heating costs, but that’s about it.

Why is the cost/benefit factor for the return nonsense? With the ETICS, I have to have it repainted. The property is supposed to serve as a long-term investment. Over 30 years.... KFW 40 Plus for rental definitely pays off according to our architect. The additional effort is covered by the subsidies and I can of course also demand higher rents for the low-energy house..

But I would ask him what experience that is based on. A tenant doesn’t care at first whether it’s a Kfw 40+ house, if they even know what that is. If the additional effort were covered by the subsidies, everyone would build that way. Anyone considering a multi-family house as an investment property should at least familiarize themselves a bit with the subject. Calculated exactly according to the energy saving ordinance and the other standards calculated based on the achievable rent. If you don’t want to make money but just want to get rid of your cash, of course you can do whatever you want.

That can certainly be worthwhile, the 15,000€ repayment grant is available for each housing unit, whereby the necessary technology may only need to be installed once, e.g. the photovoltaic system with storage, and the additional effort per housing unit essentially results from the insulation and the space consumption.

KFW 40 Plus for rental definitely pays off according to our architect.

If I were an architect, I would also like to have KfW 40 houses in my agenda.

The additional effort is covered by the subsidies and of course I can also demand higher rents for the low-energy house..

In the single-family house sector it does not pay off. But I can't really discuss this, as I honestly lack the knowledge.
If there is a subsidy per housing unit, yes... then...

Still, one has to mention that as a former builder I rather cursed having to build such a tight house that starts to stink without ventilation, etc. Not only did building become more expensive, and ours is only Kfw70 with ventilation. Every expert involved in energy would rather build a house according to an older state of the art – that's our experience.

you have an advantage if you can advertise with (on paper) low heating costs, but that's about it.

How much less is it? 5€? 10€? The tenant doesn’t even notice that saving, as such apartments will then cost 4€/sqm more as a "modern comfort apartment with super energy values." Additionally, there is an interior design that naturally must be on par with the technology. Under rain showers and mini walk-in closets it doesn’t work. Whether you can get that back in the rent... what is supposed to be the target group? How many apartments will there be? It’s an interesting project in any case!

The thermal insulation is not the point with KFW 40 Plus. The difference between KFW 40 and 40 Plus is the photovoltaic system including energy storage (battery) and energy management. The battery only makes sense if I use the electricity myself. As a landlord, however, I would have to sell the electricity to my tenants, which is legally difficult. So I would have to feed it into the grid. Then I don't need the battery. Or does anyone know a reasonable solution for this?

Current status:
A medical practice will be located on the ground floor, which would definitely use the electricity.
Then above that, 6-9 residential units.
First, the development plan must be changed by the city.
Then it goes into the details.
Will continue to report.