Land prices and standard land value and tips for land search

Another suggestion for a promising search (you probably didn’t want to address a previous one):

[*]Rent a billboard in the preferred areas, make yourself likable as a neighbor, and call for contact.
[*]Attend the public meetings of the building committees. There are people like you and me sitting there. You get information and contacts.
[*]Spend a weekend standing at the sausage stand at a hardware store and buy everyone a drink and a sausage roll for a tip.
[*]Create a Facebook page or Instagram story about your property search and report on your actions and experiences, make sure you get traffic on it, paid regional advertising doesn’t cost much.

Do something out of the ordinary, stand out and generate reach. Self-marketing, basically.

If you don’t have the financial resources to outcompete other searchers by “brute force,” you need a different strategy. Besides the financially strong, communicators, creative people, and likable ones win more often than those who do what everyone else does.
You have already started looking for other solutions by asking here. Spice up your already well-structured approach with heart, imagination, and strategy.

Regarding the criticism of the situation:

Housing shortage is not combated with redistribution policy. Municipalities also have the power to designate more building land.

In the singular consideration of the housing shortage with regard to single-family houses, the designation of more building land would be a solution for people in exactly your situation.
In considering the housing shortage as a societal challenge, it is about much more, e.g., participation and resource management — here, one cannot avoid the idea of compensation for those financially weaker. Whether you then call that “redistribution policy” or whatever.

Why is something like this no longer done today?

[*]Because it would be extremely stupid. We would continue to seal surfaces unrestrainedly and rob ourselves of our livelihood. After me, the flood.
[*]Because it would be highly antisocial. The stronger ones can take whatever they want without co-financing the consequences, the weaker ones end up even more “empty-handed” than they already are.
[*]Because it is absurd for a coherent person to fight problems at their root or to expect that something will improve if you just keep doing what you did before.

Another suggestion for a promising search (you probably didn’t want to address a previous one):

[*]Rent a billboard in the preferred areas, make yourself likable as a neighbor, and call for contact.
[*]Attend the public meetings of the building committees. People like you and me sit there. You get information and contacts.
[*]Stand on a weekend at the sausage stand of a hardware store and treat everyone to a drink and a sausage roll for a tip.
[*]Create a Facebook page or Instagram story about your property search and report on your actions and experiences, try to get traffic on it, paid regional advertising doesn’t cost much.

Do something unusual, stand out and generate reach. Self-marketing, basically.

If you don’t have the financial resources to outcompete other seekers with “brute force,” you need another strategy. Alongside the financially strong, communicators, creative and likable people win more often than those who do what everyone else does.
You have already started looking for other solutions by asking here. Spice up your already well-structured approach with heart, imagination and strategy.

Interesting tips, thanks for that.

Regarding criticism of the situation:

In the singular consideration of housing shortage with regard to single-family homes, designating more building areas would be a solution for people in exactly your situation.
In the consideration of housing shortage as a societal challenge, it is about much more, e.g., participation and resource management – here one cannot avoid the idea of compensation for the less financially strong. Whether you then call that “distribution policy” or whatever.

[*]Because that would be extremely stupid. We would continue to seal surfaces unchecked and deprive ourselves of our livelihood. After me, the flood.
[*]Because that would be highly antisocial. The stronger could take whatever they want without co-financing the consequences; the weaker would then be left looking even more “down the tube” than they already are.
[*]Because it would be absurd for a reasonable person to fight problems with their cause or to expect things to improve if you simply continue as before.

I understand the issue with soil sealing. On the other hand, people simply move where the work is; land is freed up elsewhere, which could then be renaturalized. Another measure would be a building and own-use obligation, as is already the case for municipal land allocation, but that would have to be extended to existing building plots as well. People hoard building plots and keep passing them down without ever using them. This would also curb speculation and would, from my perspective, be much more social than simply excluding all outsiders.

I cannot understand your second point, or rather I see it differently. Municipal building land can be allocated according to social criteria. The status quo with artificial land shortages and allowing speculation leads to prices rising further and further, and even with two good incomes one has to think carefully about whether they can afford property at all. Those with less are lifelong rent slaves and finance the lifestyle of others. My father was the sole breadwinner of a six-person family back then. If it had been like today, every bank employee would have had a laughing fit if he had come around with his building project.

It has already been explained nearly to what I mean by . If you have found a starting point, you look around the corresponding areas on foot. I have never advocated that you should wear out your soles in the process. To my Barthel tips, add those from , then there should not be many ways to avoid success.

On the other hand, people move to where the jobs are, and this frees up areas elsewhere, which could also be renaturalized.

This speaks in favor of considering where the jobs are. Unfortunately, no areas become free, and a site where a construction vehicle has wreaked havoc can only be renaturalized by the next ice age. Just because something green is growing does not mean the damage to the soil is repaired. Today we know this for certain; a few decades ago, we were still clueless and therefore made different decisions.

Municipal building land can be allocated based on social criteria.

This is true to some extent because building land cannot be considered without densification. For you and me, who can afford a house, it’s great that we can buy land and afford a large sealed area for few people. For society, it is better to reconsider the ratio of residents to sealed area. In this sense, I am even a very bad example with my house concept. If the costs for surface sealing were charged to the person causing the sealing (builder), hardly anyone could build anymore. So the ratio is adjusted and not as many areas are released for sealing for individuals.

The status quo with artificial scarcity of building land and allowing speculation leads to prices continuously rising and even with two good salaries you have to carefully consider whether you can afford property ownership at all.

The scarcity is not artificial but necessary. One hardship is to be reversed. In the process, another hardship arises (costs for builders), which is considered less severe. The concept of the single-family house will not work for the masses in the long run. Mathematically speaking. Politically, it is therefore right to think about it. That I personally find it annoying is another matter. I also find rainy weather annoying but know that it is necessary. I know I am treading on thin ice here because I myself live in a house with a rather large plot and do not fully align my own actions to the common good. An occasional smoker who says smoking is unhealthy and nevertheless occasionally smokes is far preferable to a smoker who, against better knowledge, tries to justify himself by claiming smoking is great and denying the effects. Let the stones fly.

I have a young architect in the family. He graduated from an art academy and now works in a very prestigious architectural firm that designs exclusively wooden houses (also public buildings). When I recently talked to him about our house planning, I thought I was in shock: • House? Why a house? You have a 4-room apartment! • 170m2? Are you crazy? • Double garage? Compacting the ground for a parking space? A NO GO! • Balcony? Not possible, too uneconomical! • Dormer? No space for photovoltaic system! • Bay window with flat roof? Only heat loss and no added value! The young architects see no future in single-family houses. Existing buildings should be renovated and gaps in the building fabric should be built on. New development areas are OUT anyway :rolleyes:.

That suggests that people are thinking about where the work is. Unfortunately, no areas are becoming available, and a site where construction vehicles have rampaged can only be renaturalized by the next ice age. Just because something green is growing doesn't mean the damage to the soil has been repaired. Nowadays we know this for certain; a few decades ago we were still clueless and therefore made different decisions.

That is true to some extent, because building land cannot be considered without densification. For you and me, who can afford a house, it’s great that we can buy land and have a large area sealed for few people. For society, it is better to rethink the ratio of residents to sealed area. In this sense, I am even a bad role model with my house concept. If the costs for land sealing were charged to the sealer (builder), hardly anyone could afford to build anymore. So one mixes the ratio and doesn’t release so much sealed area for individuals.

The scarcity is not artificial but necessary. A hardship is to be reversed. Another hardship arises (costs for builders), which is considered lesser. The concept of the single-family house will not work for the masses in the long run. Purely mathematically. It is therefore politically correct to think about it. That I personally think it's stupid is another matter. I also find rainy weather annoying, but I know it is necessary.

I know I am treading on thin ice here, since I myself live in a house with a rather large plot and do not fully align my own actions with the common good. An occasional smoker who says smoking is unhealthy and yet occasionally smokes is much preferable to a smoker who, against better knowledge, tries to justify themselves by claiming smoking is a great thing and negates the effects. Let the stones fly.

I can well understand your arguments and also see the necessity of a planned and moderate handling of land resources. But I think the current policy is not thought through consistently to the end. Landscape protection apparently has a much higher priority than achieving climate targets. Public transport is not being expanded but rather cut back, and people are forced to commute because they can partly no longer afford rents near work, let alone a building plot. Instead, attempts are made to steer via CO2 pricing, which cannot work; people still have to get to work somehow. I simply do not see sensible planning of land use based on demand. And as I said, there actually would still be plenty of building land available, but it has already been grabbed by people who already own a house, hoping that their children might one day build nearby. Which I can understand; I would probably do the same if I had the chance and children. But it is selfish.
That should be restricted or incentives created to ensure that existing building land is actually used for building and living.
If the sparse building land that a municipality can allocate is almost exclusively given to locals who nevertheless commute every day to the next major city, that is quite ecologically questionable.

I am glad that my hometown took a different path in the 90s. For our family, this was a social advancement made possible only because there was cheap municipal building land and we, as a family with many children, could benefit from the political funding programs that already existed at that time. Plus a lot of own effort; as I said, except for the earthworks, foundation slab, floor slabs, and roof structure, everything else was done by ourselves back then. We moved directly from a 60m² social apartment to our own house, which was the prerequisite for my career path and that of my siblings. I wouldn’t have known how to study for my high school diploma if I had had to share my room with my three younger siblings...