Hello everyone,
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
B
Bauherr20187 Aug 2017 14:35RobsonMKK schrieb:
And anyone who wants to make all sorts of compromises should just think about what they are really doing it for. That’s exactly what I want to find out: where I can make compromises and where I shouldn’t. Why I want to build? That would lead to another discussion. For me, it’s only about putting the money in the right place.
However, he does not ask about what is beneath the plaster and screed, but rather about KfW efficiency levels and building services. Unfortunately, you can tell that some forum members live in regions of Germany where only the top 10,000 earners can afford to build, due to the prices. Although it is somewhat more expensive, you are among people in a similar situation... The understanding that owning property, even in a more modest form, can be satisfying and that these are achievable goals for average earners in other parts of the country is missing. This results in a careless "never ever" attitude... Karsten
Nordlys schrieb:
However, he doesn’t ask about what is under the plaster or screed. Instead, he asks about KfW levels and building services. Sometimes I wonder if you are trying to confuse someone.
Where would that go? Right in the middle of the living room on the carpet?
You need to be clear about what you want and weigh the pros and cons of different technologies. At the same time, you should keep an eye on the government’s plans. Gas heating may seem affordable today, but there is a plan prohibiting gas heating systems from being installed after 2030.
There are cost-sensitive users like @Nordlys; I don’t want to be unkind, but priorities might be different just before retirement. We don’t know anything about you—age, family status, etc. These are all factors to consider.
How long will I be paying off the house? If, for example, the loan term is 30 years, can I still afford a feature that costs 5,000 or 10,000 (e.g., dollars) not because it pays off financially, but simply because it’s great?
C
chand19867 Aug 2017 14:50To answer your initial question precisely, you need to clarify whether you are referring strictly to economic profitability and over what time frame you want to calculate it.
Over 10 years, something might seem economically unprofitable, but it might turn out differently over 20 years. However, you cannot look too far into the future, or else it becomes mere guesswork.
So: purely economic, yes or no? Observation period: 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, etc.? These parameters are needed.
If your budget is truly fixed where you set it, your only option is to proceed as Nordlys suggested, and the above questions no longer apply.
If you want to know how to live most economically: rent and don’t tie your money up in a property. Building a house is a luxury, not a financially sensible investment. It is therefore a matter of the heart.
Over 10 years, something might seem economically unprofitable, but it might turn out differently over 20 years. However, you cannot look too far into the future, or else it becomes mere guesswork.
So: purely economic, yes or no? Observation period: 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, etc.? These parameters are needed.
If your budget is truly fixed where you set it, your only option is to proceed as Nordlys suggested, and the above questions no longer apply.
If you want to know how to live most economically: rent and don’t tie your money up in a property. Building a house is a luxury, not a financially sensible investment. It is therefore a matter of the heart.
The mentioned budget range (cost groups 300 + 400) will certainly not be sufficient. Even with the most economical fittings, unavoidable construction costs will likely be at least €250,000 (about $270,000), excluding additional construction-related expenses, landscaping, and public or private infrastructure connections.
What you might be able to build within this or even a reduced budget in a specific situation (existing plot) can only be developed individually by an architect through a preliminary design (1–3 options). They can also try, possibly for an additional success fee, to incorporate so-called "cost-effective construction" principles in their design: particularly simple building shapes, the most basic materials, and so on. Designing a very simple and economical building that still complies with all legal requirements is more labor-intensive for the architect than a "standard" construction project. This must always be taken into account. The architect will also not be able to guarantee that the low budget you desire can definitely be met.
Based on experience, construction costs below €1,500/m2 (about $140/sq ft) of net floor area, as you currently wish, are generally not feasible in Germany.
What you might be able to build within this or even a reduced budget in a specific situation (existing plot) can only be developed individually by an architect through a preliminary design (1–3 options). They can also try, possibly for an additional success fee, to incorporate so-called "cost-effective construction" principles in their design: particularly simple building shapes, the most basic materials, and so on. Designing a very simple and economical building that still complies with all legal requirements is more labor-intensive for the architect than a "standard" construction project. This must always be taken into account. The architect will also not be able to guarantee that the low budget you desire can definitely be met.
Based on experience, construction costs below €1,500/m2 (about $140/sq ft) of net floor area, as you currently wish, are generally not feasible in Germany.
C
Caspar20207 Aug 2017 15:02Bauherr2018 schrieb:
"economic / ecological house constructionThere is a nice book called "Buy or Rent?: How to Make the Right Decision for Yourself" by Gerd Kommer.
According to it, from an economic perspective, buying/building property is almost always a "loss" business.
Bauherr2018 schrieb:
The house should cost around 200,000 € and outlive usI recommend a bunker. Seriously. No house lasts forever. Except for the foundation wall, everything usually needs to be replaced at least once during the typical lifespan. Roof, insulation, plumbing, heating system. The only things that really remain are the concrete slab and the walls.
By the way, ecological house construction is really a different matter and price range for me. Meaning healthy building materials and similar aspects.
And regarding prefab houses: they are not cheap. In other words, good quality ones usually exceed your budget.