Prefab house vs. solid house - Please urgently need advice!!

This is about a Huf House,... comparable in EP to a Mercedes.

However, if you take a conventional prefabricated house, such as Massa House,...
then it already has a lower valuation in new condition.
(Poland imports aside.)

Already today, the energy rating is at the forefront.
Especially in the future, I can well imagine that construction methods will become increasingly less important because they will converge more and more.

What will still be a solid house in 30 years, a house where the structural framework is still the wall, or a wall with a concrete shell in the wall structure?

Maybe then we will build with nanogel,...

The fact is more for me that all conventionally built houses today will no longer secure the "pension" in 30 years if the energy status is no longer tenable.

A house only becomes interesting when it is paid off and then requires no high renovation costs. The builder often already paid double anyway because of the loan.

Best regards

Well, that doesn't make much sense. There are prefabricated houses that are 30 years old. The problem, as I see it, is rather that more mistakes could have been made in the wall construction or that the chipboards still contain formaldehyde. I currently have such a renovation case, an Okal house. It smells very musty, the exterior walls have to be completely renovated right down to the supporting structure. The chipboards in the ceilings will be replaced with drywall, I hope the interior walls will be okay,...Best regards

There are also plenty of 30-year-old solid houses that have problems with the wall construction, smell musty, and need renovation. Come to the new federal states. There we will certainly be on par with your Okal house.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. For certain things, you also need mass, e.g. as a heat storage or as sound insulation at certain frequencies. Both a wooden house and a stone house are extremes for me. However, I find the compromise through a composite of materials quite interesting, because each layer thus receives an optimal benefit. I see exactly this benefit as paramount. of course I assume that Okal Haus builds the walls differently today. Only when I see the wall construction of Streif Haus as mentioned above, is trouble already preprogrammed outside the standard configuration. With the climate and passive wall, the vapor diffusion barrier is located in the middle of the wall, just because they probably want to save in production and simply add the additional insulation packages on the energy wall. Apart from the fact that currently only the climate wall 40 with 0.15 would be standard.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

@hephta
of course I assume that Okal Haus builds the walls differently today.
But when I see the wall construction of Streif Haus Haus as mentioned above, problems outside the standard design are already preprogrammed. In the climate and passive wall, the vapor diffusion barrier is located in the middle of the wall, just because in production they probably want to save and simply add the additional insulation packages onto the energy wall.
Aside from the fact that currently only the Climate Wall 40 with 0.15 would be standard.

I'm curious about what exact problems are already preprogrammed. Because we are building a KfW40 house with Streif Haus Haus.
The Climate Wall 40 not only has a general addition of further insulation. A insulation material with a better WLG is also used. Is that then less problematic? Certainly not, right?

The wall construction is already OK as it is, the Klimawand 40 has an additional installation layer so that the vapor barrier is not damaged by sockets, screws, etc.

additional installation layer

but not in the illustration, there only 60mm of insulation is shown again. The pre-wall installation would have to be located between the 60mm insulation plus vapor barrier and the plasterboard with at least 40mm.