New standards in new construction and their impact on us

What savings can be expected if you do not build according to the Building Energy Act? I comply with the Building Energy Act with 48 kWh/m²/a. Monolithic with aerated concrete insulating block 36.5cm, 8.5cm insulation WLG 0.35 on the floor slab, no insulation under and around the floor slab, triple-glazed windows, 20cm mineral wool WLG 0.35 from ceiling to cold roof.

What could be sensibly saved now?

The truth is that building is mainly expensive because it has to be: a dressing room, a double garage, a guest room for guests who come once a year, 250 sockets, 30 network sockets, server cabinet in the HAR, SmartHome with KNX, bathroom fittings from Villeroy, parquet everywhere, glued by the parquet installer, Q4 from the painter, etc.

You can see it here in the forum. Whoever builds a Town & Country house is put here as a welfare recipient who should better stay in a panel building...

Only, I happen to live in my own home and paid it off in 20, 25 years. While others complain that you cannot afford a house, have to pay off for 30, 35 years, spend 40% of your net income for it, etc... well...

The Energy Saving Ordinance is not to blame for the high prices.

But according to the OP, this is meant as "new standards." The politicians do not care whether our houses are filled with dressing rooms or children's bathrooms. I'll put it this way: as long as you can still afford all that you don't need in house construction, you shouldn't complain.

Currently, about 1.9 million apartments in various buildings are vacant (Census + Empirica). Overall, we do not have a housing shortage. Of the mentioned vacancies, about 1/3 were ready for occupancy within the next three months.
But the apartments are not located where many want to live. That is the much bigger problem.

Yes, that is absolutely true.

Now one wonders why refugees or citizens receiving basic income have to live in Hamburg, Munich, or another metropolitan area with a housing shortage at all?

Why does the state, which also pays the rent for the apartments, not control the housing industry? It cannot be that the police officer or the saleswoman in Munich cannot find an apartment while the citizen receiving basic income then has their apartment paid for by the state.

One gets the impression that the state even promotes the housing shortage by doing so.

Advertisements only briefly online

Rent madness in Berlin: 43,000 applicants for 288 apartments in 30 minutes.

Those are the effects. No sign of almost 2 million vacant apartments.
I still remember the saying, "He who pays commands." And if the state covers the rental costs, then it can and should also determine where the recipient should live. Then one wonders about clan formation and unwillingness to integrate.

But instead of Berlin, one could also live in Neuruppin or Dessau. In Dessau, living space is even being destroyed with state funding (demolition premiums). But that is only one of many problems in Germany.

It is like at the bakery. The rolls became more expensive last year because grain prices soared. That was the reasoning given.
This year, grain prices have halved. Has a single baker lowered the prices for rolls? Not to my knowledge.

Two years ago, they advertised building plots here. 50 euros per square meter, even nice location with a view, etc. Suddenly up to 75 euros.
I ask myself why? Well, because prices are rising everywhere. But nothing has changed regarding the plot itself. No value-influencing measures at all.

The main problem is much simpler, but also much more unpleasant. There would be significantly more living space, maybe not enough, but definitely more.
However, the existing living space is not used efficiently.

Often old people live alone in 100m² old buildings and more. The partner has passed away, the family lives far away in other cities. Nowadays absolutely not a rare constellation.
But the old lady or old gentleman simply cannot move because there is no smaller apartment nearby with affordable rent.
So one person usually lives completely overwhelmed in 100m² and at best uses only the living room and bedroom.

This is where action needs to be taken, however one wants to do it. It can be discussed.

But it makes no sense to create more and more, ever larger living space.
When I was looking for an apartment with my then-girlfriend 9 years ago because our first child was coming, the usual new apartment looked like this:
80m² 2 rooms, that is bedroom and living room. 100m² 3 rooms. 4 rooms only from 120m². Madness, complete madness. Huge living rooms, huge balconies... nice, but simply unaffordable for the average person.

In the 90s I lived with my parents in 100m² with 5 rooms. Nobody builds that anymore...

The main problem is much simpler, but also much more unpleasant. There would be significantly more living space, maybe not enough, but definitely a lot more. But the existing living space is not used efficiently.

Often old people live alone in 100m² old buildings or more. Their partner has passed away, their family lives far away in other cities. Nowadays an absolutely common constellation. Only the elderly lady or gentleman cannot move because they cannot find a smaller apartment nearby at an affordable rent. So one person usually lives completely overwhelmed in 100m² and at best only uses the living room and bedroom.

Something needs to be done about that, no matter how you want to tackle it. One can discuss that.

But it makes no sense to always create more and bigger living space. When I was looking for an apartment with my then girlfriend 9 years ago because the first child was coming, the usual new-build apartment looked like this: 80m² 2 rooms, i.e. bedroom and living room. 100m² 3 rooms. 4 rooms only from 120m². Madness, total madness. Huge living rooms, huge balconies... nice, but simply unaffordable for the average person.

I lived with my parents in the 90s in 100m² with 5 rooms. Nobody builds that anymore...

I also see the gigantomania in living space with new buildings. When we were looking (just two of us, no children) we practically didn’t find a single-family house on the market that wasn’t too big. Now we have 117 sqm, the basement/laundry room is already included. 4.5 rooms, one room we basically don’t use. And that with fixed home office. At the moment the garden is too small for us, the living space definitely isn’t.

Layout and sensible room distribution and positioning are much more important than mere area.

huge balconies

See my attitude towards the garden. With an apartment I would immediately prefer small rooms in favor of a “huge“ roof terrace for the outdoor area.

That's how it is. When interest rates were high, semi-detached houses/townhouses were built. I'll deliberately mention the keyword "boklok". Also in terms of size. Boklok nowadays has reached around 120 sqm, almost 30% more. With falling interest rates, it had to be the detached single-family house, and from then on there was no stopping it. 160 180 200 sqm, as big as possible, bigger, biggest. Then the already mentioned guest bathrooms, parents' bathrooms, children's bathrooms, wellness oases. Of course, all built to the minimum energy standard, insulation mania (surprisingly also promoted by so-called experts) heat pumps were yucky (you can read about it all) and so on and so forth.

We should stop whining at a high level, a bit back to the roots wouldn't hurt us...