ᐅ Construction Project Feasible or Unrealistic, Budget 400,000 Euros
Created on: 31 May 2017 00:12
B
Bauanfänger36
Like many here, I have the desire to own a small house.
I have now found a plot of land for 160,000 euros with 600 sqm (6000 sq ft) (not yet purchased). This is about 270 euros per sqm (25 dollars per sq ft), which is roughly 50 euros above the market value for our region. However, calling it a “market” would be an exaggeration since there is hardly anything available. A few sellers are even offering their plots for 350 euros per sqm (32 dollars per sq ft). The cheapest new house for sale in the area costs 420,000 euros (about $460,000) (120 sqm (1300 sq ft) house on a 240 sqm (2600 sq ft) plot). New condominiums with 3 rooms range from 270,000 to 360,000 euros ($300,000 to $390,000).
My wish:
To build a small single-family house without a basement, around 100 sqm (1076 sq ft), completely finished for 240,000 euros (about $260,000).
Do you think this is realistic?
I have now found a plot of land for 160,000 euros with 600 sqm (6000 sq ft) (not yet purchased). This is about 270 euros per sqm (25 dollars per sq ft), which is roughly 50 euros above the market value for our region. However, calling it a “market” would be an exaggeration since there is hardly anything available. A few sellers are even offering their plots for 350 euros per sqm (32 dollars per sq ft). The cheapest new house for sale in the area costs 420,000 euros (about $460,000) (120 sqm (1300 sq ft) house on a 240 sqm (2600 sq ft) plot). New condominiums with 3 rooms range from 270,000 to 360,000 euros ($300,000 to $390,000).
My wish:
To build a small single-family house without a basement, around 100 sqm (1076 sq ft), completely finished for 240,000 euros (about $260,000).
Do you think this is realistic?
ypg schrieb:
The ratio is regulated in the zoning plan through the floor area ratio/site coverage ratio and therefore almost always fits well into the surrounding area.
There is no deduction in points or loss in value because of this.
Best regards in briefYes and no. This may apply to typical plot sizes in the area. However, beyond a certain plot size, this no longer holds true. Not everyone wants, for example, a 10,000m² (2.5 acres) plot for a house. This significantly limits the buyer market, which tends to reduce the price in relation to what you get. Conversely, a narrow “towel” plot of 200m² to 300m² (2,150 to 3,230 sq ft) in rural areas can seem unattractive and lower the price.
When we were looking for a used house between 2010 and 2012, for example, there were plenty of terraced houses built between 1994 and 1996 around Dresden on the market for about €150,000 to €180,000. Great value for money, but completely uninteresting to us because these narrow plots were simply too small. Nowadays, the market for such houses is also depleted, and the same houses are now listed online for €100,000 more.
S
Steffen802 Jun 2017 09:45Musketier schrieb:
Yes and no. This might apply to typical plot sizes in the area. Beyond a certain plot size, this no longer applies. Not everyone wants, for example, a 10,000m² (2.5 acres) plot with their house. That significantly narrows the buyer market, which usually results in a lower price relative to the value offered. Conversely, a very small plot of 200m² to 300m² (2,150 to 3,230 sq ft) in rural areas can seem unattractive and push the price down.
When we were looking for a used house between 2010 and 2012, for example, there were many terraced houses built between 1994 and 1996 around Dresden on the market for about 150,000€ to 180,000€. Great value for money, but completely uninteresting for us because these narrow plots were simply too small. Nowadays, even those houses have been snapped up, and the same properties are listed online at prices about 100,000€ higher.For us, it’s not just empty... a complete vacuum has formed. Not even expensive houses are being listed online anymore. Incredible...
This discussion is about building single-family homes... In rural areas, plots of over 10,000 m² (2.5 acres) are common, but you will likely find a floor area ratio of 0.1 to 0.2 and therefore a relatively small building envelope compared to the rest of the (natural) property. Of course, you have to like that, especially since the surrounding infrastructure might not be the best.
The closer a plot is to urban areas, the smaller it tends to be. Whether you fit the target group or not is something you decide for yourself in advance. This, however, does not reduce the value. There are all sorts of scenarios—in my large company, you find a balanced mix: people who can afford a house of standard size on a small plot close to major infrastructure, and others with the same house size but on larger land, often rural or even forested.
Therefore, it is definitely not correct to say that a plot is oversized or disproportionate compared to the house. The ratio is determined by the local authority (floor area ratio) and almost always fits into the surroundings, unless the authority has different plans for the area than what the existing environment suggests.
Best regards in brief
The closer a plot is to urban areas, the smaller it tends to be. Whether you fit the target group or not is something you decide for yourself in advance. This, however, does not reduce the value. There are all sorts of scenarios—in my large company, you find a balanced mix: people who can afford a house of standard size on a small plot close to major infrastructure, and others with the same house size but on larger land, often rural or even forested.
Therefore, it is definitely not correct to say that a plot is oversized or disproportionate compared to the house. The ratio is determined by the local authority (floor area ratio) and almost always fits into the surroundings, unless the authority has different plans for the area than what the existing environment suggests.
Best regards in brief
To illustrate what I mean, here is an example (even though it is not from the single-family home sector).
My mother-in-law owns a multi-family house with an attached commercial building (residential and usable space presumably between 1500m² (16,145 sq ft) and 2000m² (21,528 sq ft)) on about 10,000m² (2.5 acres) of land located on a hillside by a stream. The property includes several ponds, trees on a steep slope, outbuildings, and so on. In summer, it is a truly idyllic location.
But just maintaining the property in decent condition would require hiring someone full-time. I won’t even start talking about the buildings. The money you invest in renovations there will never be fully recovered if you sell.
If you wanted to sell the place, it would probably only appeal to a nature lover with a large budget, likely for use as a private summer residence. But there aren’t many buyers like that.
A similar building with a more “manageable” piece of land without ponds and outbuildings might attract a completely different group of buyers as an investment property and could yield a higher price.
What I want to say is, regardless of any ratio or regulation set by the building authority / planning office, if you deviate too much from the local norm—whether regarding lot size up or down, or house size up or down—then the property becomes a niche or specialist object, and prices tend to decrease.
However, I don’t see this effect with the scale of properties Marvinius mentioned.
For houses under 80m² (860 sq ft), the situation would probably be different. In that case, the buyers’ calculation in 20 years (with rising land prices and increasing space requirements) would be the land value minus demolition costs.
My mother-in-law owns a multi-family house with an attached commercial building (residential and usable space presumably between 1500m² (16,145 sq ft) and 2000m² (21,528 sq ft)) on about 10,000m² (2.5 acres) of land located on a hillside by a stream. The property includes several ponds, trees on a steep slope, outbuildings, and so on. In summer, it is a truly idyllic location.
But just maintaining the property in decent condition would require hiring someone full-time. I won’t even start talking about the buildings. The money you invest in renovations there will never be fully recovered if you sell.
If you wanted to sell the place, it would probably only appeal to a nature lover with a large budget, likely for use as a private summer residence. But there aren’t many buyers like that.
A similar building with a more “manageable” piece of land without ponds and outbuildings might attract a completely different group of buyers as an investment property and could yield a higher price.
What I want to say is, regardless of any ratio or regulation set by the building authority / planning office, if you deviate too much from the local norm—whether regarding lot size up or down, or house size up or down—then the property becomes a niche or specialist object, and prices tend to decrease.
However, I don’t see this effect with the scale of properties Marvinius mentioned.
For houses under 80m² (860 sq ft), the situation would probably be different. In that case, the buyers’ calculation in 20 years (with rising land prices and increasing space requirements) would be the land value minus demolition costs.
This also varies greatly by region. Tourism is booming along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts. Due to concerns about Islamist threats and similar issues, many people no longer travel abroad. Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and Turkey are no longer popular destinations. Small houses sell very well here and are often converted into holiday homes, either for personal use or rental. Older properties from the late 1950s near the harbor are selling for almost 200,000. Karsten
Similar topics