KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

for a standard that is common and not progress?

They became the standard through such funding programs. It is still not economical to build KFW-55 without the subsidy.
I have submitted my application, but I was not lucky and did not receive automatic approval.
I have to tackle the project anyway now. Does it make sense to build according to KFW-55 specifications without the subsidy? Wouldn't it be better to downgrade (from an economic point of view)?

Sorry, that's nonsense. Aside from that: Why should the general taxpayer (including tenants who will never be able to build) support people with money (partly >50,000 thanks to the granny flat trick) for a standard that is common and not a progress? Why should the middle class have houses subsidized? The money would be better invested, for example, in municipal housing construction to help many.

As far as I’m concerned, the subsidy can be completely abolished if, at the same time, the energy requirements are dropped and everyone can build according to what is economically viable for them. Those who want energetically highly efficient buildings must, in return, also offer something. Without subsidies, I will always only build what I absolutely must and nothing beyond that. Every family that moves into a single-family home also frees up an apartment somewhere. Suburban development areas thus also function as a pressure valve for overheated housing markets in cities. Fewer single-family homes means, conversely, more permanently blocked apartments. In this respect, the state is well advised to promote both, single-family homes and housing construction.

How economical is your TV? Your watch? Your mobile phone? Your car? Or your vacation? In house construction, this is then presented as a threat. If you don’t give me the contribution to save energy, then I will burn lignite in the stove in the future?

And would one really do without modern living comfort? And live again like the so despised old buildings?

They are economically sufficient for my needs. I would build according to the specifications that satisfy my living comfort. I could install a central ventilation system or even an air conditioning unit. My own specifications could be something that does not meet the government energy-saving requirements.

How economical is your TV? Your watch? Your cell phone? Your car? Or vacation? In house construction, this is then used as a threat. If you don’t give me the contribution for saving energy, then I will burn lignite in the stove in the future?

And would people really give up modern living comfort? And live again like the so despised old buildings?

Nothing is given for free. A subsidy is tied to costly requirements and additional money must be borrowed and interest paid. The repayment grant is factored in. I would build immediately without KfW funding if our municipality allowed me. The building obligation to at least KfW55 was justified by the fact that in return there were "attractive subsidies." Now the subsidy is up in the air. But the requirement remains.

I don’t know where you live, but around here old buildings are not despised at all, otherwise there wouldn’t be a yawning emptiness in the real estate portals here. And it doesn’t look better in the neighboring municipalities; we searched intensively for 3 years. By the way, I could just as well ask why I as a taxpayer should pay to have the old, run-down house brought back up to standard. But I don’t, because new living space is new living space, whether it’s a revitalized half-timbered house in the town center or a new build on a greenfield site.

But it is repeatedly emphasized how uncomfortable old buildings are. People simply like to have 26 degrees indoors in winter and do not want to pay much for it. That is only possible with good insulation. At times, every second new construction project here included a "granny flat" to secure double funding. That is a taxpayer gift that is really not necessary. For example, environmentally friendly technologies could be promoted with a heavily reduced VAT rate. There are enough ideas on how to promote more sensibly and targeted. I think we will see some of this in the new edition of the funding programs.