I want to briefly pick up on @11ant’s accusation again... I would argue that most builders cover the additional costs for the building standards to be met with the KFW subsidy and do not build a garage for themselves
I didn’t just make this up out of my infinite malice. If you tally up my written posts, I must have read about seventy thousand posts here. Nowhere does it say "the KfW sponsors my garage," of course, but often there is the almost shamelessly self-evident mindset of incorporating the grant amount into an overall budget from which one builds a fancy house with all the bells and whistles. If families with two children already regard 140 square meters of living space as a kind of subsistence level, then in my opinion, that is an almost Roman scale of decadence. I think to myself—as a Protestant, mind you—"that breaks any confessional booth." In this sense: stopping the KfW funding programs does not shatter building dreams but merely reduces many maxims to flair.
why should I spend the 25,000€ additional costs for a KFW40 building? I will never recover that through the resulting lower operating costs, not even in 3 lifetimes...
That’s what I’ve been saying forever, that the subsidy for the premium level KfW40 is a recognition contribution for the avant-gardism of the builders and is far from covering costs.
Or does a prefabricated house with the same equipment and individually planned cost less than a solid house? If yes, feel free to tell me the company
We have already had this topic here repeatedly – with the consensus: both construction methods usually cost about the same, except for the KfW40 level and higher, where the surcharge for the stone house is higher. This means the other way around: in KfW40 and higher, the "prefabricated" house is ahead price-wise.