Uncertainties regarding size, planning itself is so far completed

Always a little bigger than necessary..

Why 100 hp when 120 will do, a few extra cents in fuel consumption don't matter, same with higher insurance costs, or a 65-inch TV instead of a 55... that's called excess, which will eventually pay off.

already started building or still planning the layout?

To be honest, the sentence about cleaning typically came from the envier, shot from the hip. I am glad that the interest rates have fallen and that many things have gone well so far, so that we were largely able to implement our ideas.

You live in your numbers

That depends, there are things better done with numbers and others more by feeling. If it's about the statement that house X consumes (significantly) more than house Y, then I prefer the numbers.

And yes and no: certainly, area is faster to clean than niches and corners. Still, there is a difference between 100 sqm and 200 sqm, because then the time factor must also be considered.
You are very well-read, but one should always also judge for oneself whether something is wishful thinking or if there is something to a thesis. Your one-sided lectures are hugely lacking and boring by now.

I would be happy if someone had a counter-argument, so it wouldn’t remain a one-sided lecture.

Construction costs are higher - and significantly with 70 sqm more.

Then the people from Rheinau-Linx probably miscalculated or had something to give away. I think if you build 700-800 houses per year and have been in the business for 55 years already, you can miscalculate sometimes. Probably, they just rolled the prices of their standard houses. They offer 68 sqm extra for 44,000 EUR anyway. The emphasis is on extra.

Higher prices for electricity, heating, insurance, property tax are also there.

Electricity - no.
Heating - see above (60 - 120 EUR).
Insurance and property tax could be.
But honestly, I never said that the maintenance costs are exactly the same. But in total per year, that is negligible.

What probably bothers most here is your almost condescending writing about people with smaller houses - how stupid they must be.

Not at all. I even admire the people who have settled into such real tiny houses (that is, 50 sqm or less). Just building small for 10,000/20,000 EUR in the budget but actually needing a lot of space, I don’t think is good.

Even months ago traveling just as small and defended it endlessly, today Grym writes as if there never was any other wisdom. But the internet forgets nothing...

I already said that I have learned a lot.

If it were all so cheap and logical, why do so few build big then?

Because everything is often very tightly calculated. 430,000 EUR for 120 sqm and done. 450,000 EUR would cover 165 sqm and the family actually wanted a third room and not everything crammed together, but with 30,000 EUR equity, eventually it’s the end of the line. Friends of ours put in almost 50 percent equity and still built before they were 30. They really built exactly as they imagined without lazy compromises.

Ultimately, it is also a decision for life - many do not want a huge building later that is more empty than full.

It is not. If you don’t like it anymore, you sell it. Probably with a good profit. Having a house for 20-25 years of family life and later a bungalow or possibly a city apartment for the next 25 years is okay, isn’t it? Why should I live in a too small house for 25 years?

Guess how many people have spoken to us about the house size, why so big and who should clean it and so on... ultimately it is a personal decision which even a Count Numbers should accept.

I’m saying that. But the argument “big is expensive,” “big means more cleaning,” or “in 25 years it might be too big” are not convincing arguments for me. What is 100 percent valid for me is when someone says that their house size is completely sufficient and they will lack nothing in the next 20 years.

Always a bit bigger than necessary..

Right.

Why 100 hp if 120 will do, those few more cents for fuel consumption don’t matter, same with higher insurance costs, or a 65-inch TV instead of a 55-inch... that’s called excess, which eventually pays off.

A car with more horsepower might consume less because you don’t have to run it so close to the limit. And insurance has nothing to do with that at all. And if the 55 inch costs 900 EUR and the 65 inch costs 950 EUR and it’s not too big, then certainly (to analogize prices now like house prices in that example).

already started building or still planning the floor plan?

Oh, just waiting for the development first. Nothing much happening in winter anyway.

But with 70 sqm more, you also have electricity costs, because these square meters also need to be used and lit. That’s where the limit is in your theoretical consideration.

You don’t simply enlarge your space program, but with 70 sqm you usually create additional rooms. Just one more bathroom costs a good amount of money...

And over 40,000 EUR is not an amount? Blessed is the planning phase, when you’re still clueless running around with lots of money. You can already see that you think 450,000 EUR and then 165 sqm – I haven’t paid that for significantly more sqm. But I certainly wouldn’t take myself as a benchmark – just as you shouldn’t.

You always come with your fat profit on the sale – you mostly only have that when you build in the “right” area. Where, however, you already have to dig deep into your pockets beforehand. And building there is usually more expensive... large plots with large houses are even more scarce.

You are so blinded – if I wanted to sell my place in 20 years, I might not even get the construction costs back without interest. And don’t think I’m the only one.

A single-family house in particular is rather less suitable as a capital investment with profit intentions. More likely apartments or just empty plots...

So if you build bigger, you have just as many corners, but you have to clean more surface area, possibly more windows, it definitely takes longer, even if it might be less per square meter. More open space naturally costs less per square meter in relation, but if you have one more room, other costs also arise (one more door, more windows, sockets switches, larger ventilation system, heating system...). So it strongly depends on how you divide those 20sqm, everything a bit bigger or a new room? Usually more PS are more expensive aside from that, nowadays even small engines are not less efficient, and most of the time you only drive with a fraction of the power anyway, then large engines are clearly at a disadvantage because the efficiency of modern engines still needs a bit of RPM. Oh well, it's not about cars.

But with 70sqm more, you also have electricity costs, because these square meters also need to be used and lit. That’s the limit of your theoretical consideration.

Lighting accounts for only a fraction of the electricity costs. More important are devices like PC, TV, oven, cooktop, fridge, etc., and you don’t use more or less of those just because the living room is 15sqm bigger or smaller.

You don’t just enlarge your room program, but usually create additional rooms with 70sqm. Just one extra bathroom costs a lot of money...

I never spoke about more room program. And even then, I wouldn’t primarily argue with a bathroom, but rather a third kid’s room, an office, etc. – and these rooms hardly have specific additional costs.

And over 40,000 EUR is not an amount? Blessed is the planning phase, where you can still run around clueless with lots of money . You can already see that you think 450,000 EUR and then 165sqm – I haven’t paid that for much more sqm. But I certainly wouldn’t take myself as a benchmark – just as you shouldn’t either.

My example was, of course, meant with the plot of land. If I get 50 percent more living space for 10 percent more total costs, that’s a good deal as long as I actually need that living space. Of course, if you are completely happy with 129 sqm, then you don’t need to spend 10 percent more.

You always with your fat profit on the sale – you mostly only have that if you build in the “right” area. Where you then also have to dig deep into your pockets beforehand. And building there is usually even more expensive... large plots with big houses are even more scarce.

I would always recommend the right area, yes. We are building 3.5 km from the university and less than 5 km from the main station. Public transport there runs every 10 minutes during peak hours, yet the location is absolutely quiet without social hotspots. By bike to the city center on bike/pedestrian paths in under 20 minutes. The building plots were actually all gone immediately and we really got one of the best. So if I now assume that I can sell the place easily in 20 years and certainly get a good price, then that’s just how it is. And then you can build again or move to the city center. We’ll see.

You are so blinded – if I wanted to sell my place in 20 years, I might not even get the construction costs back without interest. And don’t believe I’m an isolated case.

I don’t know that. Is it really far outside or what?

Especially a single-family house is less suitable as a capital investment with profit intentions. More likely apartments or empty plots...

A single-family house is not a capital investment, but you shouldn’t bind yourself to a single-family house for life either, because you’ll never get rid of it again. If we get older later and are just the two of us again, the house might be too big, but at some point the garden itself is surely also a problem. I definitely don’t want to bind myself to this house and this place for life, but for the next years and probably decades the place and the house of this size is well suited. I also sometimes find it better how Americans relate to their houses. These are utility items for them, which can be bought and also sold again. They have to suit the CURRENT life situation and not the one in 20 years.