New standards in new construction and their impact on us

Now, you don't transplant an old tree.

That's why I wrote, at 60 or 70. At that age, you are not an old tree.

I mostly see the new standards as a double-edged sword.

Energy efficiency is theoretically sensible to protect the environment and achieve low ancillary costs. However, realizing insulation with an enormous amount of Styrofoam/Styrodur, etc., which is classified as hazardous waste, is anything but sensible. But other raw materials are simply much too expensive.

For a KFW 40 house with funding, a photovoltaic system is a must. In theory, this idea is not bad. Many small (theoretically) green energy producers can represent a solution to get the energy crisis under control in the long term. Photovoltaic modules have also become much cheaper and more efficient in comparison due to turnover. However, these systems are not profitable if you have to buy 1 kWh for 30 cents and can only sell it for 7 cents. Most modules come from China, making both the environmental balance and production methods for workers questionable. And I am really curious whether the modules can be operated for 20-30 years. If not, then I am quite sure that a warranty claim will no longer be possible at that time because the company simply will no longer exist.

With most new standards, I have the feeling that the state simply hopes that the market will somehow regulate itself and find some solution. However, this does not really work well or only works at the expense of the citizens. Many rules conflict with each other, and in most regulations, foreign countries benefit more than Germany itself.

The willingness to provide personal effort has significantly decreased overall. But it must also be said that legislation as well as many manufacturers make it increasingly difficult to do things yourself. There are far too many regulations and permits required that simply did not exist back then. Moreover, the "fear" of doing something yourself is enormously fueled. It feels like you only read and hear that everything should be done by a professional company because it is highly critical, difficult, or dangerous to do it yourself.

I mostly see the new standards as a double-edged sword.

They generally apply to multi-storey residential buildings. There, the sword is only one-sided – when, out of fear of the technical rules, 137 sockets per apartment "have to" be installed, or floor slabs have to be at least 30 cm thick. Just from the planning phase 2022, when it was compared how new building ceilings are constructed in Europe – all currently recognized technical rules... (depending on the country) This is exactly about mitigating the excessive regulations, DIN obedience, and adherence to generally accepted rules of technology without creating significant restrictions on usability. Goal: More new housing construction at reasonable prices. And in many respects, the building type e, which is the subject here, achieves that. It also concerns, for example, extensions upwards, which are made significantly easier.

I can well imagine how something like that comes about.

I am not an active designer, but I am a mechanical engineering technician and studied industrial engineering. In my studies, we had to calculate a shaft that should withstand 2 tons. First, you take the weakest point and then calculate the required diameter. That was about 12mm. And then comes the safety factor! If people could be in danger, the safety factor is 4.5. That means 12mm x 4.5 = 56.25mm. According to regulations, this diameter must then be chosen.

I think the structural engineer has similar regulations.

A faction in the forum here has identified the exaggerated demands of the builders as the reason why building appears too expensive to many. People no longer want to build without dressing rooms, KNX, and double garages. A question to this group: Why have then large housing companies like Vonovia stopped or slowed down their housing construction and are waiting for better times (which according to consensus here in the forum will never come)?
Quote (1.8.2024):

Vonovia emphasizes ramping up development again as soon as the framework conditions for new construction ensure reasonable costs and affordable rents.

Why doesn’t Vonovia simply build smaller and without KNX?

Why doesn't Vonovia just build smaller and without KNX?

You have to completely disconnect or separate owner-occupied housing from rental housing construction. Owner-occupied homes only have to be affordable. Rental housing must be profitable. And with the large housing companies, like Vonovia or LEG, which are currently focusing on affordable housing and offering average rents of 6-7€ as affordable, you cannot build as cheaply as necessary in their core markets, such as the Ruhr area. Even in social housing (in terms of quality), you have to reckon with nearly 3,000€/sqm pure construction costs. But for these apartments to even be affordable, you usually need rents well above 10€ – it’s just nonsense when only clientele who can afford 3.8€ to 4.95€ live in Duisburg Marxloh. The decision there is digital – do it or leave it. I had new buildings from a housing company in Cologne on the table. To finance them and still get a return (we’re talking about returns of just over 3% after all costs and financing, so you don’t get rich from it), the rent MUST be 15€/sqm. For the homeowner, a return doesn’t matter. They build their house for T€ 750, for which they would get 2,000€ rent per month. That’s 3.2% return BEFORE taxes, management, maintenance, rent loss, etc. The homeowner can do that; it’s for themselves and you can’t calculate quality of life with returns. Vonovia and others cannot do that – they would rather need 5,000€ rent or more, which no one can afford. That’s where the problem comes from. It doesn’t matter whether I offer 40sqm apartments at 15€/sqm or 200sqm apartments at 15€/sqm. Nobody simply rents those. You can compare this a bit with e-cars. Which ordinary person can and wants to buy a "green" car for 80k? The market is lacking.