Realistic cost estimate: Single-family house with unfavorable development location

Several reasons: you can share the connection costs, the garden will be shared anyway because of the already existing house in the first row (with the same people). You have less lawn to mow and garden to take care of if you build more :D now you just have to place the two houses sensibly on the farmstead or one with the appropriate floor plan. The others need 100m² preferably on one level, we about between 140 and 160.

That’s not what I mean. We have been discussing your possible single-family house here for 10 pages

Build a new single-family house

We would be very happy about thoughts on the project, many thanks in advance!

… and now you come up with the idea of building two houses (or MGH) or sharing the building plot. And in this post you even write that there are already some who want to build a bungalow, you instead of the 130 sqm at once 140-160 … If you still want to split your part of the property, then you should first consider what you actually want and b) what is even possible. Because after all, it is precisely the missing development plan that restricts ground area development. And if it is such that you simply realize that one house is too expensive for you and you want to compensate for that by selling part of the property, that is of course allowed, but this mental leap should also be communicated.

then you should first think about what you actually want and b) what is actually possible

aren’t you being a little too strict there? At least for me, I keep considering different alternatives over and over. Also because of the suggestions here. The dream house is getting too expensive? Ok, then redesign. And gladly share ideas here, listen to comments, discard or incorporate them. Isn’t that also a nice part of this forum? With a highly regulated development plan, you are restricted, and that can be good or bad. Without a development plan, you first dream freely and eventually talk to the architect and/or the building authority. And then you go through the next round. Our architect said that the planning (of the shell) doesn’t end before the shell is finished. Before that, you still walk through the house and then shift one or the other wall again. Of course, that doesn’t have to be (and doesn’t make it cheaper), but in the end, I might want to live in the place for a few decades. In the end, it is of course great if you show the community how you decided / what came out of it. Sometimes even only one or two years later. My building application has been at the building authority for almost a year, but yesterday I saw (because of the property tax) that house numbers have already been assigned.

And if it is the case that you simply realize that a house is too expensive for you and want to compensate for that by selling part of the land, that is of course allowed, but this mental leap should also be communicated.

It seems to me rather (see site plan in post #44) that the original idea was to establish a building plot in the compost corner of a deeply related property (which is a separate parcel). Hence probably the mindset to virtually extend its development - although in my suspicion the connection from another side would be easier. The mental leap now seems to me to be: "why not just move in under one common new roof with Uncle Hinnerk and Aunt Trude?" - that’s why my references to (in my opinion this can work well) and Claudia-Marlen ("disruptive factor little brother").

Hi everyone,
It is exactly as says: it is one of the biggest projects in life and you shouldn't get stuck on "we thought about it differently at the beginning." The plot is 1800m², separated by 3m on all sides and leaving the existing greenery undisturbed results in an area of 980m². I think that is enough for two houses or one big one.


The entire ensemble of parcels belongs to the two of them and they need a long-term age-appropriate solution. They had once planned to build there themselves and we just thought that you could do everything “in one go” if you’re already making a mess anyway :D Nothing is supposed to be divided or sold, only the owners of the front house plot would move into a new house in the back. Regarding the sale, it’s more about the long-term perspective. If in 20 years we want to run away to Australia, we might find it easier to sell two separate houses than one big one (in that case the parcels would need to be re-divided later, of course). And the larger area results from the (legitimate) objections here to rather plan more space for utility rooms and children's rooms - I’m writing here now because I am open to implementing such suggestions :)

It seems to me rather (see site plan in post #44) that the original idea was to locate a building plot in the compost corner of a deeply related property (which is a separate parcel). This is probably also where the thinking comes from to more or less extend its development – although, in my suspicion, the access from another side would be easier. The mental leap now seems to me to be: "why not just move in with Uncle Hinnerk and Aunt Trude under one common new roof?" – that's why my hints to (in my opinion, this can work well) and Claudia-Marlen ("disturbance factor little brother").

Compost corner is a bit understated for 1800 m² :D The development extension comes from the following circumstances: One side of the property borders three-story apartment buildings with a condominium association >24, whose bylaws do not provide for majority decisions, but exclusively approve whatever EVERY SINGLE OWNER supports. It is unlikely that with >24 parties no one opposes. The other side borders a property whose owners cannot yet foresee exactly what will be developed there and therefore do not "just allow" to connect there. On the remaining existing (own) parcels there are no sufficient nodes.

"Build only once" is something nobody under 40 believes anymore today, but this popular belief is so widespread and deeply rooted that today's builders still very effectively stand in their own way because of it. Even the "until the end of life, and then for the heirs" house is an unnecessarily complex project. When additional generations are included, complexity even turns into cumbersomeness and the whole thing becomes almost too much even for the engineer. The jack of all trades, master of none even exists in Wolperting only when there is a new moon on St. Neverday – even Halley’s comet appears more often.

The plot is 1800m² in size, separated by 3m on all sides and with existing greenery left undisturbed, resulting in an area of 980m².

Nice naive calculation. The boundary distance only becomes relevant when placing the building, not before. It does not directly affect the floor area ratio, and for 980 out of 1800 sqm it would already have to be 0.54 – in rural areas, half of that is usually the standard.