11ant
2018-04-03 19:44:33
- #1
Modular houses are an idea that has been resurfacing repeatedly for about a hundred years without establishing itself – which, in my opinion, is not a loss.
Solid and prefabricated means prefabricated walls (as panels or masonry). Nowadays, large-format and glued instead of mortared bricks are common, so the construction time disadvantage of "classically site-masoned" houses is practically negligible.
60 to 80 sqm is doable and increasingly offered thanks to the target group of "well-earning singles." However, this is first an uneconomic size regarding the ratio of floor area to envelope area, so energetically not very efficient.
In a peer group of the same age, you will probably be almost the only ones not building again in approaching retirement age. So I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on building a house now that will still fit then.
And regarding your resale argument: I don’t believe it, because in my opinion there is a crucial flaw in the thinking. Potential buyers of a two-person property are currently rather couples whose children have already left home. In this sense, a house for childless people would only fit the childless grandchildren ;-)
I’ll summarize your idea of a modular house and my hint about house size: then I end up with a double bungalow. Either two roughly equally "sized" bungalows attached to each other with a couple in a comparable situation and life plan, or you build with a granny flat that a subsequent owner could turn into an open connection if they need more space with children.
What speaks against the option of switching to ownership but staying in an apartment?
Because this "apartment" size is actually the most (not only economically) efficient to realize.
2. Solid prefabricated house
If we were to build ourselves properly, we would choose a small bungalow between 60 and 80 m². Why? I only want to build once in my life and therefore avoid stairs that we might not be able to use later. Besides, we think that a small house is cheaper to maintain, can be sold later due to demographic developments (although this is not planned, but you never know), and of course is cheaper to build.
Solid and prefabricated means prefabricated walls (as panels or masonry). Nowadays, large-format and glued instead of mortared bricks are common, so the construction time disadvantage of "classically site-masoned" houses is practically negligible.
60 to 80 sqm is doable and increasingly offered thanks to the target group of "well-earning singles." However, this is first an uneconomic size regarding the ratio of floor area to envelope area, so energetically not very efficient.
In a peer group of the same age, you will probably be almost the only ones not building again in approaching retirement age. So I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on building a house now that will still fit then.
And regarding your resale argument: I don’t believe it, because in my opinion there is a crucial flaw in the thinking. Potential buyers of a two-person property are currently rather couples whose children have already left home. In this sense, a house for childless people would only fit the childless grandchildren ;-)
I’ll summarize your idea of a modular house and my hint about house size: then I end up with a double bungalow. Either two roughly equally "sized" bungalows attached to each other with a couple in a comparable situation and life plan, or you build with a granny flat that a subsequent owner could turn into an open connection if they need more space with children.
What speaks against the option of switching to ownership but staying in an apartment?
Because this "apartment" size is actually the most (not only economically) efficient to realize.