Uncertainties regarding size, planning itself is so far completed

We see it differently - that's why the cemetery is not far, I would just have to get there on my own later.

I live in the village - so not outside, so to speak. Your mantra-like repetition of your building plot is really nice - but you need 20 minutes by bike to get to the city center? Cool, I need less to get to our beautiful district town. By car, less than 5 minutes...

But never mind, my crap won't be worth anything later anyway, and I don't care. If I wanted/had to sell it later at a loss, I wouldn't care either - I lived the way I wanted until then. Tenants don't cry over the money thrown out the window every month either.

We see it differently – that’s why the cemetery isn’t far, I’d just have to get there on my own later.

What do you mean? That a house should always be optimal for every stage of life? So for the time with children, for the time when the children have moved out, for the time when you no longer feel like gardening and would rather go to the opera, the restaurant, etc. in the next big city, as well as for later on, when you prefer to have everything nearby and definitely don’t want to take care of even 80-90 sqm, but rather live in the city center with good services?

I live in the village – so not outside, so to speak. Your mantra-like repetition of your building plot is really nice – but you need 20 minutes by bike to get to the city center? Cool, I need less to get to our beautiful district town. By car less than 5 minutes…

Of course I’m talking about a “real” city. One that grows by 1 percent in population every year (meaning housing is in demand), which has a university with 35,000 students as well as an opera, an ICE train connection or at least a small airport for connecting flights to Frankfurt or Munich. And you also know why I’m mentioning this here, because that really is a guarantee that you at least don’t lose money on a large scale.

But anyway, my stuff is worthless afterwards and I don’t care. If I had to sell it at a loss later on, I don’t care either – I lived the way I wanted until then. Tenants don’t cry over the money thrown away every month.

That’s exactly what I mean. Live the way you want until then. So I’ll build the house now in a way that is optimal for family life and won’t worry about whether it’ll be too big, barrier-free or whatever later on. Another family can enjoy it later.

Building a house is usually a big money sink - many just don't want to admit it.

Why not, because emotionally it's usually exactly the thing you want. We don't have a big garden, but a big house - of course that's very big for two people later. But it's not like being too big is devastating.

I don't need an opera and I don't want students living with me either. I also don't benefit from a growing city - at least not primarily for my life.

Within a radius of 30 km, I have everything you could wish for - and I have already lived centrally in cities like Münster. If you like it, fine - I don't. And I'm not alone with that...

For you, that seems really difficult to understand, right?

Of course, I am talking about a "real" city.
One that grows in population by 1 percent every year (i.e., there is demand for housing), has a university with 35,000 students as well as an opera house, an ICE connection or at least a small airport for connecting flights to Frankfurt or Munich.
And you know why I mention this here now, because that is really a guarantee that you at least do not lose money on a large scale.

That would be a place where I wouldn't even want to live, even if I were given a house.

I choose my place of residence according to my preferences, not based on the predicted depreciation/appreciation (no one knows what will happen in 20 years, maybe a crisis and prices will plummet). For the high costs, I want to feel comfortable.

Building a house is usually a huge waste of money – many just don’t want to admit it.

If you do it intelligently, you’re just shifting assets. With dozens of extra wishes, a location far outside, etc., it can of course really destroy money. But used properties here, for example, don’t cost less than new builds, so we won’t destroy value here.

Why should it, emotionally it’s usually exactly the thing you want . We don’t have a big garden, but a big house – sure, that’s very big for two people later. But it’s not like you break down from something being too big

Didn’t you just say that it shouldn’t be too big?

I don’t need an opera, and I don’t want students around me either. I also get nothing from a growing city – at least not primarily for my life.

We don’t need an opera at the moment either, not many people in their 20s go there. But imagine, preferences develop and change. Students, on the other hand, have something good about them, they keep the city young and prevent “small-town mustiness.” And a city has jobs, purchasing power, and a growing city almost certainly ensures that property values don’t fall.

I have everything you want within 30 km – and I have already lived centrally in cities like Münster. If you like it, fine – I don’t. And I’m not alone with that…

At the moment, I also wouldn’t want to live centrally, just because of all the fine dust issues, etc. – but in 20 years without kids and with completely different hobbies and fine dust-free inner cities – maybe? Maybe not? But I don’t want to close off the option by having a house that can’t be sold.

For you, that apparently is really hard to understand, right?

No, no. You built a house that is optimal now. I don’t even know if it’s optimal when the kids have to go to high school alone, but right now it is optimal. We’re also building like that: quiet area, traffic-calmed neighborhood, on a hill so no problems with fine dust, and still short distances to baker, supermarket, butcher, etc., and also to primary school as well as high school (even university, but that wasn’t a criterion) and friends and family still nearby, reachable quickly not only by car but for example also by bike.
But I have no idea what the world will look like in 20 years. Maybe I won’t even feel like gardening anymore and would rather trade my house for a city apartment, going out, short distances in a car-free inner city, etc.

That would be a place where I wouldn’t even want to live, even if someone gave me a house.

You wouldn’t like to live close to a historic village center in an absolutely quiet location with a small forest right next to the building area and no blocks or anything else around? Okay, where else then?

I choose my place of residence according to my preferences, not according to the predicted loss/gain in value (no one knows what will happen in 20 years, maybe a crisis and prices will tumble). For the high costs, I want to feel comfortable..

We chose our place of residence, for example, because we already live in the city anyway and didn’t want to move far away because of land prices. So we looked for something very close to the inner city, yet quiet and village-like. As I said, about 3.5 km by bike (or just under 4 km by car) in one direction and you’re right in the middle of the student quarter/university. A few hundred meters in the other direction there is a little brook with a small forest.
But if rents weren’t so high and land prices still affordable and we didn’t expect the property to at least retain its value, because properties are in demand in the area, especially thanks to population growth of course, then we wouldn’t even build. It’s not meant to be financial Hara-Kiri; it makes sense.
So basically, we chose the place of residence first and then decided whether it makes sense to build or rent. Here, building makes sense.