You are still arguing incorrectly. The question is whether to sell now and buy new. And the high selling and buying prices balance each other out. You can take the old loan with you.
In the future, the only question is whether you want to have a loan or not. Even then, it doesn’t matter whether the property is sold with residual debt or not.
That’s what I’m getting at.
Or are you implying that in old age without child(ren) you still want to build a 200 sqm palace on 2,500 sqm of prime building land? Then it’s of course sensible to have more equity. But once you’re over 50, the two of you won’t want to build bigger anymore. Just differently—perhaps as a bungalow. The property must fit the respective life situation.
I can tell you from my own experience (house from the mid-60s WITHOUT insulation). Currently with 31 (with underfloor heating) and 35 (with radiators) degrees flow temperature. Very efficient and cost-effective. There are two apartments in the two-family house without exterior insulation. But must be well calculated by the energy consultant for heating design. For your house, you can heat blindly and cheaply with a heat pump.
No, definitely not bigger. It will probably go towards a bungalow.
To summarize: You live with a growing single child in a "middle house" by standard, for which you are already second owners. Middle houses are always in demand on the market—but hardly by people looking for optimal individual planning standards, rather for a pareto-optimal economy standard. That will still be the case in five years when you can transfer the property with untaxed "speculation profit." Keep making the garden pretty, and otherwise don’t spend money except on paint—the buyer wouldn’t thank you for it. Energetically, I don’t see you threatened by investment obligations, and there’s no amortization to look forward to during the further holding period. If the son needs a second kids’ room to hang out with his friends (in the worst case in a "storage room"), neither the flooring nor the radiator requires a building permit. Don’t drive yourself crazy and save free money well diversified for the dream house. Turning a middle house with vouchers into a dream house is economic nonsense. You decorate it nicely with coins, and that’s fine. On the real estate ladder, I wouldn’t bind ballast to my feet; a different step decor won’t give that back to you (and if it does: by now, there are "wrappings" for that).
Thanks. That describes my feeling pretty well—should I sink X euros here, even if I myself find it super stylish, when the next owners couldn’t care less whether it’s a country house staircase or the beige beech bolt staircase, for example. As important as the interiors are to me, my husband and I are ultimately two penny-pinchers; otherwise, we wouldn’t have bought as we did. :D That means we only fulfill the interior wishes if we don’t have to neglect value-preserving measures in doing so.
For two new staircases, the local staircase studio quoted €17,000 here, I almost fell off my chair, so maybe better a heat pump...
Unfortunately, the thing is hard to wrap; it’s a cantilevered bolt staircase with an impossible railing shape. But well, the eye gets used to (almost) everything, I will survive if it’s not replaced. :)
For a house from 2007, honestly, I wouldn’t waste a thought on energy refurbishment or replacing a working gas heating with a heat pump. Financially, it pays off, if at all, only in the long term. And in 15 years, the heat pump will be so old that it will have to be replaced when selling. What gas consumption do you have? We had about 16,000 kWh including hot water in recent years. Through savings, we are now at about 12,000 kWh. As long as electricity is generated from gas and thus the electricity price continues to rise, a heat pump just doesn’t pay off for us. At least, not at the current device prices.
If you can use the attic space well, you should definitely go ahead with the expansion. Whether living space or not, it’s an added value for the buyer, unless they want to rent out the house.
We currently live in a semi-detached house built in 1997 as four people. It’s only 105 sqm, but without the finished attic, which doesn’t count as living space. Now we have about 120 sqm including the attic, so one more room and a layout that suits us better than in the old house with 125 sqm and four rooms.
If we had known three years ago that we would now have 1,500 EUR more per month available, we could have been a little bolder. So now we can save more and inflation doesn’t hit us that hard. After replacing the staircase to the attic and renovating the bathroom last year, either kitchen and/or guest toilet are planned for this year. The money we didn’t spend three years ago we are now investing into modernization so that we can live as we feel comfortable.
When the kids have left the house, we would like to move again, stand now. But I wouldn’t start to modernize the house now for a potential buyer because of that.
Last year 12,000 kWh, but unfortunately the heating was not optimally adjusted then; we should now be below that again.
We don’t want to install gas again unless we have to, but also don’t want to plunge into excessive costs.
We feel similar to you, the "extra room" would be a real gain, because regardless of sqm you simply have one more separated room. We noticed that while viewing other houses as well—that more sqm doesn’t always mean more usable space, even though, from my point of view, more space is generally nice.
I also wouldn’t modernize for a potential buyer, but since the period is manageable (about 15 years), I won’t put everything into my dream living space either, and then there is the coolest staircase and the nicest kitchen, but an old gas heating :D and doing everything again is not feasible either, we simply don’t have that much left over.
You have a thinking error. If you now have an appreciation in value on your house and can sell it overpriced, it is only because the other houses (which you currently find too expensive) are also sold overpriced. Suppose in 10 years you want to sell your house and move to another because real estate prices have fallen, then your house’s value has also dropped and you won’t get more house than today for it. Your house is also part of the market. There are only two possibilities.
1.) High demand for your house => High (overpriced) selling price => High price when buying/building a new house
2.) Low demand for your house => Low (realistic) selling price => Low price when buying/building a new house
You cannot decouple yourself from market events. If you sell today at a high price, you must also buy/build at a high price. If you sell tomorrow at a low price, you can buy/build at a low price. The value (selling price) of your house logically adapts to the market.
That’s clear to me, but it’s a difference whether I leave the house as it is now or upgrade it in the right places. That positions it in comparison to other houses here differently than if we just left everything as is. Hence my thought to consider beforehand where to put money in and what we might save for the "next" house.
