Semi-detached house, upscale fittings: Are the additional costs correct?

Strange discussion here. On the one hand, a large group of women at the beginning, then many useful hints and questions, and then a OP who vehemently defends his plan (with exactly THIS project). I just wonder why this continues here like this. The OP has absolutely no interest in a factual discussion of the answers to the questions he raised. I will therefore summarize the results once for the OP:

1. The equipment is sufficiently dimensioned.
2. The provider is reputable and will carry out all work in the interest of the OP.
3. The equipment is medium to high.
4. There are no risks regarding unexpected costs.

Then everything is just fine. I keep my fingers crossed (seriously) and wish a continued worry-free project.

My questions are not always answered correctly either:

Example question: Don't all houses have to be insulated:
Answer: no

What am I supposed to make of that?? Why is that?? According to current regulations, houses have to be insulated.

My questions are also not always answered correctly:

Example question: Don't all houses need to be insulated:
Answer: no

What am I supposed to do with that?? Why is that so?? According to current regulations, houses must be insulated.

There are questions that are incorrectly asked. In your case: Don't all houses need to be insulated should probably be: Don't all houses need to be additionally insulated with xx or something. If you build monolithically, e.g. with aerated concrete, a certain thickness of the stone is sufficient so that no additional insulation is required. In my opinion, the answer no is the correct answer.

The forum does not replace reading fundamental housebuilding literature.

Regards Yvonne

Edit: Your question was: Isn't every masonry covered with an ETICS?? And the answer is: No. That is the correct answer, see above.

I do understand the reasons for defending one's own project. That is somehow normal and quite honorable. And yes, the responding comments are rather not encouraging, but instead evoke a certain uncertainty that one really does not want to have.

Critical, pessimistic, and enlightening comments should not deter from the project, but only serve as a kind of incentive to address these points in one’s own interest. What remains can be a clarification / explanation / contractual agreement that excludes the risks raised (as well as possible) or leads to you accepting these risks (fully aware of their possible extent) as "bearable" for yourself. Sometimes, a warning about possible significant cost increases (e.g., problems with soil / water, etc.) results in the desired project ultimately proving to be unfeasible and requiring a different plan, which may also culminate in starting a new property search.

And yes, I also sometimes think that (e.g., with financing contributions) things are painted in a very dark light. On the other hand, one can and may carry out the project despite knowing the comments. In that case, the decision is made consciously and with awareness of the possibly arising problems. Not all financial concerns materialize into actual problems.

In your specific case, however, you might (albeit laughingly) be running straight into a circular saw. It is all quite vague and un concrete. That regularly means that the actual executions are rather on the lower end of the cost spectrum and may not deliver what you envisioned. That then means additional costs for changes, which really hit hard because the developers (quite often) then crank up the prices significantly (you have no choice regarding who has to carry out the work, price comparisons are possible but the negotiating leverage is completely lacking).

As I said, I am keeping all available fingers crossed, although ultimately it does not really matter.

Good evening,

My questions are not always answered correctly either...

Mine not either:

- was my decision 36 years ago the right one?
- did I give my best to my children?
- does everything really have to be rosy in my granddaughter’s life?
...
- to be continued

Rhine greetings

I also have to give my two cents now.... I keep asking myself why you need this "upscale" standard. Why do I need tiles that cost 60€ per square meter? Tiles that I won’t like after 10 years anyway... Why do I need electrically operated blinds? So that I can replace the motor after 10 years because it’s broken? Why do I need an air-to-water heat pump that costs an extra 20,000€, so that I break even on energy costs in 20 years, and then have to buy a new expensive air-to-water heat pump? If it even lasts that long.... You pay off your house over 30 years or more, only to have to take out another equally large loan to maintain it again. Better limit yourself to the essentials, and spend your hard-earned money on going on vacation a few more times instead. Why do I need 15 sockets in the kids’ room? Be glad if you can solve it with just one switchable power strip, which also reduces standby power consumption. You don’t have to automate everything....

Regards

Hartmut