To what extent do you consider living in old age when building?

Whether I make larger investments NOW to build an age-appropriate house, I don't know, but I can consider what I am already doing now to possibly still be able to live there despite limitations (whether I actually do it is another matter). This means: I can incorporate it as a background thought in the floor plan, for example, I choose doors with a 1m passage instead of 90cm (this probably won't cause much additional cost in house construction), I consider how to later possibly make a staircase more "walkable" or how to get to different floors with a mobility impairment (which can occur not only in old age). That means: designing stairs wide enough so that a stairlift can possibly be installed or considering whether to plan preparations for a home elevator. In new, well-insulated houses, you can completely do without door thresholds (which used to slow down cold air at floor level but are no longer needed), so it is barrier-free. Overall, these are preliminary considerations and small details that do not lead to much additional cost but are more than helpful in case of need.

I fully agree with Climbee's last sentence. In my assessment, if you consider this direction during new construction, there are hardly any additional costs. Whether you plan a staircase in the middle of the house or close to the entrance, there are no extra costs. However, in 30 years, a staircase at the entrance is easier to separate from a potential ground floor apartment than a staircase in the middle.

The idea is nice but unfortunately usually does not work out. If the house is simply too large in old age, even the relatively small investment in wider doors/stairs is wasted. Enormous property value is lost due to unused or not properly usable living space – most owners are not aware of this or they don’t care because they cannot emotionally detach.

It only makes sense to consider repurposing/reducing one’s own living space, whereby you then have the problem that you would have to know/estimate the need in 30-40 years. This is foreseeable in some areas – in many others less so.

That is difficult and precisely for this reason the discussion about reducing the real useful life of private properties arises at all.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

Whatever they have alone with their "too big" - if the house suits me today, why shouldn't it suit me later? I'm not building big just for the children - that's two rooms plus a kids' bathroom, which would then be "too much." Although you could wonderfully make a guest room, sewing room, or - if it really has to be - another master bedroom out of it.

I really close off unused rooms and just don't use them anymore. The dust that accumulates is manageable...

As if you'd sit in the house and feel overwhelmed by it. It used to be completely normal; are people nowadays so soft, looking only towards the future?

Illness aside - but there are still spry retirees.

If it really gets too much for me, then I'll think about it - but I definitely won't always be looking for a perfect all-rounder. Then you'd never be satisfied - I'd rather live 20-30 years in my absolute dream house and then the last 15-20 years in a compromise (if at all) than have a compromise from the start.

As if you were sitting in the house and feeling overwhelmed by it. It used to be completely normal, are all of them so soft nowadays, looking into the future?

It is not about being soft or feeling overwhelmed, but for example about the misconception that you can fundamentally effectively preserve/maintain the house as retirement provision in old age. Many builders have built/thought this way and still do today.

The attitude "door closed, no one is bothered by a little dust and it costs nothing" exactly describes the typical number one value destroyer. If this refers to a single room – fine by me. But in reality, one often sees entire floors lying unused and logically no longer being technically maintained.

This is a gradual loss of value that may only be capitalized by the heirs – however, it becomes problematic if the value actually has to be activated as a form of care provision (!) during one's lifetime. Then the capital loss suddenly becomes visible. You can observe what this looks like in corresponding existing properties – the discrepancy between the owners’ value expectations and real purchase offers is regularly significant.

There are now also interactive maps of Germany where the respective property values are converted into the monthly duration of a certain care level, that is, answering the question of how long one can actually finance a nursing home place from the retained real estate provision value. It’s quite interesting and worth having a look – especially in connection with one’s own pension statements; it might open some eyes.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

I can rule out for us that an entire floor has to be shut down – the house concept simply doesn't allow that :D.

But what I definitely will not do: calculate any cards with values of properties on care levels. That might all be very impressive if you can think so much about something very far in the future. WE simply don't care whether the place later yields price X or price Y – especially not for our heirs.

But you can also overdo it – I can't plan for every eventuality in advance. And that includes selling the house for such reasons.

Then you're just out of luck – with some brains and action, you can solve most problems. There isn't a comprehensive insurance for everything where you just lie down and say, "Ah, next 60 years of peace."

Of course, you have to look to the future, but you live in the here and now. No one can foresee what it will look like in 30 years. Neither in terms of retirement, one's own health, living conditions, the development of property costs, etc. – these are all assumptions and everyone claims a piece for themselves that their assumption is right.

I prefer to stay in the now and enjoy what I have built. At least I can look back later with satisfaction and then devote myself to new challenges.