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

It also doesn’t cost the earth to make the doors a bit wider on the ground floor (also looks better) or to accommodate a walk-in shower in the slightly larger guest bathroom (which can also be used by guests)...

This is like the discussion about whether owning a home is financially worthwhile or not. It simply leads nowhere.

Why so negative? Even if you want to attribute a certain operational blindness to the builders during the decision/implementation phase – you can’t be crazy in the head for 100 years just because you build or buy a house.

And if you look at how many users here ask questions about value, financing, etc., then the argument is also hard to understand. Besides, you yourself are a counterexample to your thesis, because you have already recognized the changed needs:



If you/you all recognize that, then pretty much every other builder does too, right? ;)

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

If you all realize that, then more or less every other builder does too, right? ;)

This thread shows the opposite. ;)
I mean that without judgment.

No one needs to be "enlightened" here. Obviously, there are different views on this. I have expressed mine, you have expressed yours - multiple times. Hence my remark that it is a wasted effort.

Houses are built out of conviction, not based on facts!
Exceptions prove the rule, but that is my impression in this thread and also generally in the forum.

And I think that's okay. I have to, because I myself belong to the faction that does not see a home of one's own as the optimal option for old-age security or building wealth, yet still want to build one ;)

This thread shows the opposite. ;)
I mean that without judgment.

I see it differently – hopefully without being a know-it-all – because the development is relatively new but also due to societal changes. The baby boomers will retire from around now until the next 20 years. In another 20 years, they will be "through," but due to improved living conditions, there is a stagnation among those over 60, which will probably last for another ~30 years.

The successors are significantly fewer, so there is either an oversupply of real estate or one has to (and that is indeed happening) think about repurposing existing areas. There are municipalities that, for example, no longer get any new land for new development areas because the regional authorities show them that the demand is not there or will decrease in the future and/or can be absorbed by repurposing/densification – this would have been unthinkable 30-40 years ago.

In this respect – and many prospective builders are already recognizing this – building is no longer necessarily just a matter of "building out of conviction" but indeed already a question of "where can I even still get a building plot if I want to build?!"

Additionally, the demands on the size of the plot easily decrease to half of what was standard 30-40 years ago, which in turn makes densification/repurposing in inner areas attractive.

So – and from this (hopefully kept as neutral as possible) description, I find it very exciting to observe how this will further develop. In Germany overall (where there are indeed very few regions with a sustained growth forecast), but also locally.

That this is not the prevailing opinion yet – no problem. I’m well aware that many still think and act according to the previously "right" flow. But I also consider it wrong not to inform about changes just because of that.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

ergo gibt's entweder ein Überangebot an Immobilien oder aber man muss sich (und das passiert ja auch) Gedanken um eine Umnutzung von Bestandsbereichen machen.

As mentioned, this varies extremely by region. For example, Leipzig and Dresden are growing with their commuter belts very rapidly, smaller cities like Chemnitz/Zwickau and Görlitz, for example, are holding up quite well, and in all other areas, everyone who can leaves. In the two large cities, there is an extreme housing shortage, even in the surrounding areas. This mechanism has accelerated tremendously in recent years. The cities cannot keep up with housing construction. Single-family home plots are extremely scarce and get taken immediately (new development areas). Daycare places are becoming scarce, elementary schools are becoming scarce, and with high schools, expansions are now being made as a precaution. Example Leipzig from early 2012 with 510k inhabitants to over 570k in the first quarter of 2016. Just 60k more inhabitants. Example densification: harder than expected. Sure, everyone calculates again how many brownfield sites there are in the city, but then you take a look at them: next to the railway embankment; under the power line; in the middle of an industrial area; right next to a large parking lot with recycling containers; right next to an elementary school or the school's playground. We had previously looked at some individual municipal plots and they were all rubbish. Edit: There are many studies, Google certainly helps here, that show a significantly higher median net worth among homeowners versus renters. Why that is debatable, but having paid off asset wealth of several hundred thousand euros, hardly any renter saves that much on their investment account. And as mentioned, if the location is reasonably good, a 160-200 sqm house with a well-kept garden, terrace, parking space, and in a good location can easily amount to a few hundred thousand.