Land prices and standard land value and tips for land search

I won't become a master butcher either if I want to tell my customers at the service counter how unhealthy salami is, that one kilo of minced beef produces 13 kilograms of CO2, and that the veggie alternatives taste better anyway. The point here was that young architects are supposed to think like that. I find that very unlikely.

If you go to the butcher and say you want to cook goulash for 4 people and would like 8 kilos of Argentine beef fillet for it, a good butcher is allowed to point out that there are better ideas.

cool, finally no more car or football comparisons!

It just doesn't fit anymore when you think beyond your own nose. ...

Here it is again: imposing one's own values...
If it complies with the development plan, then it is allowed. Period. Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant.
Could it be that I have found latent envy here?

For proper classification: I am also against putting a 100 m2 house on a 2000 m2 plot (which is still allowed in many places today!). However, I do not consider a 180 m2 house on a 600 m2 plot to be excessive (if it indeed requires 180 m2 of living space).

Here it is again: Imposing one's own values... If it complies with the development plan, then it is allowed. Period. Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant. Could it be that I have found latent envy here?

For proper classification: I also think nothing of placing a 100 m2 house on a 2000 m2 plot (which is still allowed in many places today!). However, I do not consider a 180 m2 house on a 600 m2 plot to be excessive (if 180 m2 of living space is needed).

Envy of uncreative, flashy surface sealing in anthracite-gray-white without future prospects? Rather not. But thanks for the Germans' most popular killing argument. Here you can read almost daily how attempts are made to circumvent development plans. Even with generous floor area ratios. I no longer believe in foresight, a sense of responsibility, and reason.

It simply doesn’t fit anymore when you think beyond your own nose. And that’s why there are development plans and small plots of land and densification – instead of rezoning and sealing off farmland, meadows, and pastures.

More than 7% of the state’s area is planned with glyphosate-contaminated monocultures for biofuel, which is more than for residential development. Let’s take 800 m2 of such a dull cornfield, which is already more than well leveled due to intensive soil cultivation and where, without loosening by tractors, water would only flow off horizontally. And then put a single-family house on the same area: 1/3 partially sealed by house and outbuildings (but precipitation seeps into the ground), 1/3 lawn, and 1/3 blooming diversity where insects, small mammals, and birds can feel comparatively comfortable. And energy is provided by photovoltaics, even significantly more than with biofuel (if everything works optimally, 2 kWh per m2 are stored here in plant form, photovoltaics deliver about 150 kWh/m2, though in a volatile form). In this case, I clearly prefer the residential area! But such things undermine the crappy green-red dictum of public opinion...

Has anyone here written that biofuel is a better idea than houses?

Envy of uncreative, flashy surface sealing in anthracite-gray-white without a future perspective? Rather not. But thanks for the most popular killer argument of the Germans. Here you can almost daily read how attempts are made to circumvent development plans. Even with generous floor area ratios. I no longer believe in foresight, a sense of responsibility, and reason.

Well then: I like development plans - and they shouldn’t be circumvented either. And I still notice with you that you want to impose YOUR ideas on everyone else. Whoever doesn’t “allow” that is “evil” and destroys the world. You can do it that way. You don’t have to. I find dense building (one point you mentioned), for example, good and sensible. Existing building land should be used sensibly and optimally. It’s often exactly those people who supposedly “think far ahead” who then keep building plots “in reserve” for grandchildren and great-grandchildren – and are then shocked that none of them actually want to build or live at that place. Moreover, a distinction must be made between city/agglomeration and “rural/village.” The initial situation is quite different there. Oh, one more thing: even a 150m2 house is “surface sealing.” And your statement about it being “flashy” underlines your envy as well as your inability to accept others’ ideas of a house in a striking way. Sustainable building is also possible without a run-of-the-mill cottage (excuse the expression: everyone can build however they want): through good insulation, sustainable heating systems, not too large plots, etc. Our “flashy” house is greened everywhere (every roof surface), the water is collected and used – just as an example.