Young building - yes or no?

An architect does not build a house, he is the planner. The house is built by a construction company (no matter how it looks or is organized). If the architect offers a fixed price, he is a contractor and calculates just like all other companies do (which, by the way, also often build with many subcontractors).

They are both basically regional providers. The architect has been an institution in the Koblenz area for as long as anyone can remember, and Massivhaus Mittelrhein also comes from that region, but of course they also build in a wider area. The architect also offers a fixed price, so he is a proper builder. Both work with regional craftsmen, etc.

The KFW thing is already important to us. Currently, the offer from Massivhaus Mittelrhein is for KFW55. I don’t necessarily need that, but it should at least be KfW 70. Why is this important to us? First, because of energy costs, which of course you have to save in the first place. Second, I personally find it important to be independent of gas and oil and to use relatively "clean" energy. Third, it increases the value of the house in case of a sale.

Don't install a gas heating system, then you will be independent of gas.

Who has met KFW 55 has too much money

What do you think about the idea I already mentioned of building two residential units? Our "problem" is that we commute between our hometowns (about 100 km). Currently, we have the plot in my boyfriend’s hometown. Of course, we want the greatest possible flexibility, which is always difficult with a house. That’s why greatest possible. Currently, we would certainly be happy with a 3-room apartment for 5-7 years. If you split the loans, you can deduct quite a bit from taxes plus take advantage of 2x 50,000 KFW loans. Does anyone happen to know how much more it costs to make two residential units out of one house? Or is it not worth collecting 5 years of rent and then converting later?