Hello Dear Home Building Forum Community,
First of all, Happy New Year!
It is still quite early since we are not yet sure if either of the two properties will definitely work out, but I have a fundamental question and would like to gather some feedback.
So, option 1:
- Existing property with approximately 700 m² (8,400 sq ft) plot, just under 160 m² (1,720 sq ft) living space, built in 1940, garage, partially basemented. It seems to be in relatively good condition, but the layout is not ideal for our plans and we would need to invest a lot in the coming years (more/larger windows, extension, different walls, new staircase, underfloor heating). Short-term livability would probably be possible, even the kitchen with appliances could be taken over.
Option 2:
- Newly built semi-detached house, 400 m² (4,300 sq ft) plot, 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) living space, adaptable floor plan, modern upscale finish, flooring in living areas and painting still require DIY work, kitchen is an additional cost but there is a 1000 EUR kitchen voucher (wow! ).
The location is similar, although I prefer location 1, and my partner prefers location 2.
Financially, both options are quite similar; the nominal amount is higher for option 2 initially, but with option 1, a lot still needs to be invested, which from my perspective balances it out.
My question is more about risk.
Where do you see the greater risks for possible additional costs/efforts, or total losses?
For example, can a building inspector really identify all flaws in such an old property?
On the other hand, I have already learned from reading the forum how much can go wrong during house construction, and how unforeseen additional costs, necessary refinancing, etc., can threaten entire livelihoods.
I appreciate opinions, experiences, advice, and any other tips.
Thank you in advance for your contributions.
Best regards
Tolentino
First of all, Happy New Year!
It is still quite early since we are not yet sure if either of the two properties will definitely work out, but I have a fundamental question and would like to gather some feedback.
So, option 1:
- Existing property with approximately 700 m² (8,400 sq ft) plot, just under 160 m² (1,720 sq ft) living space, built in 1940, garage, partially basemented. It seems to be in relatively good condition, but the layout is not ideal for our plans and we would need to invest a lot in the coming years (more/larger windows, extension, different walls, new staircase, underfloor heating). Short-term livability would probably be possible, even the kitchen with appliances could be taken over.
Option 2:
- Newly built semi-detached house, 400 m² (4,300 sq ft) plot, 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) living space, adaptable floor plan, modern upscale finish, flooring in living areas and painting still require DIY work, kitchen is an additional cost but there is a 1000 EUR kitchen voucher (wow! ).
The location is similar, although I prefer location 1, and my partner prefers location 2.
Financially, both options are quite similar; the nominal amount is higher for option 2 initially, but with option 1, a lot still needs to be invested, which from my perspective balances it out.
My question is more about risk.
Where do you see the greater risks for possible additional costs/efforts, or total losses?
For example, can a building inspector really identify all flaws in such an old property?
On the other hand, I have already learned from reading the forum how much can go wrong during house construction, and how unforeseen additional costs, necessary refinancing, etc., can threaten entire livelihoods.
I appreciate opinions, experiences, advice, and any other tips.
Thank you in advance for your contributions.
Best regards
Tolentino
When deciding to purchase and renovate or refurbish an older building, this choice is usually made when the location of the property and the plot of land are clearly more advantageous than those of a comparable new build. Most buyers I advise explicitly do not want to build in a new development area but are looking for a unique property with history in an established neighborhood. The renovation and conversion costs can approach the price of a comparable new build if the existing structure undergoes extensive modifications (such as removal of load-bearing walls, installation of support beams, underpinning, ceiling openings, or a new roof structure). Otherwise, the renovation costs alone (cost groups 300 + 400) generally amount to about 60% to 80% of the costs of a new build, plus of course the purchase price and additional acquisition costs for the property.
An expert experienced in older buildings—such as a surveyor, appraiser, or architect—can provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the condition of an older building, but only based on visual inspection and what can be evaluated from any existing documentation (building permits, construction descriptions). Nevertheless, the existing building always remains a “mystery box” that can only be opened after ownership has transferred to you. Unexpected issues during renovation are to be expected. To minimize these surprises, a thorough and detailed structural survey and building substance analysis should be conducted after purchase and before the start of renovation planning, allowing concealed and multilayered construction components to be opened and examined.
An expert experienced in older buildings—such as a surveyor, appraiser, or architect—can provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the condition of an older building, but only based on visual inspection and what can be evaluated from any existing documentation (building permits, construction descriptions). Nevertheless, the existing building always remains a “mystery box” that can only be opened after ownership has transferred to you. Unexpected issues during renovation are to be expected. To minimize these surprises, a thorough and detailed structural survey and building substance analysis should be conducted after purchase and before the start of renovation planning, allowing concealed and multilayered construction components to be opened and examined.
So, if the location is comparable, I would choose option 2. Yes, it will probably end up costing around 600k. With option 1, however, you won’t get a better price.
I also advise against doing major renovations in an inhabited house.
If it’s “just” the kitchen and windows, it might still be manageable. But given the year of construction, I expect the water supply, sewage system, electrical wiring, roof, and insulation to all be outdated...
Plus what you described. I see option 1 altogether rather closer to 700k.
But that’s just an estimate. If you could describe option 1 in more detail, it might be easier to assess.
I also advise against doing major renovations in an inhabited house.
If it’s “just” the kitchen and windows, it might still be manageable. But given the year of construction, I expect the water supply, sewage system, electrical wiring, roof, and insulation to all be outdated...
Plus what you described. I see option 1 altogether rather closer to 700k.
But that’s just an estimate. If you could describe option 1 in more detail, it might be easier to assess.
Thank you in advance for the further replies.
Paraphrased from the listing:
Built in 1940.
Living area: approx. 150 m² (1,615 sq ft)
Usable area approx. 170 m² (1,830 sq ft)
3 rooms on the ground floor
2 rooms on the upper floor
3 bathrooms
3 (!) kitchens/kitchenettes
Basement (unknown size, I assume only partially finished, accessible only from outside)
Garage (2 parking spaces)
1 balcony (upper floor)
There were renovations in 1995 and 2010, during which the roof was insulated (I don’t know how yet), the windows were replaced with blinds (from the photos, these don’t appear to be original from 1940, but I can only say more after the viewing), full thermal insulation was applied (don’t know exactly what this means), the 3 bathrooms were renewed, and the garage and garden gates were converted to electric opening.
Currently, there are two separate living units with no internal connection (external stairs to the first floor), so one unit could initially be rented out (which is definitely an option for us).
The building is relatively narrow and long, approximately 6 x 16 m (20 x 52 ft), with a conservatory of 3 x 3.8 m (10 x 12.5 ft) attached at the widest point, and on the opposite side, the building tapers to about 4.5 m (15 ft) over the last 5 meters (all exterior dimensions). The narrow side probably cannot be extended because the property boundary is too close.
The heating consists of two separate heating circuits with gas-fired individual heating units in the basement (one per living unit), age currently unknown. Electrical circuits are supposed to be separate as well. The roof has an internal wooden paneling, so I cannot tell from the photos how it was insulated. From the outside, it looks to me as a layman like roofing felt.
The narrow layout results in an impractical room arrangement, as there is no corridor providing access to all rooms. This was worked around by designing bathrooms and kitchens as walk-through rooms. On the ground floor, one corridor leads only to a bathroom and a living kitchen, while another corridor provides access to the other rooms (kitchen, living room, small room).
Sorry that I cannot simply attach a floor plan; I currently only have those from the listing, which I am not allowed to publish here. I will provide a hand-drawn version as soon as possible.
I will try to gather further information and documents during the viewing.
Today, we drove by the property (discreetly and from the car) to better assess the location, and by now my partner also likes it (there is a playground and park next door, and a new primary school in the neighborhood).
Yes, I hope this helps with a better assessment. I understand that floor plans and more details on the condition would be much more useful, and I will provide those as soon as they are available.
Best regards
Tolentino
Joedreck schrieb:I’ll give it a try.
If you could describe number 1 in more detail, it might be easier to understand.
Paraphrased from the listing:
Built in 1940.
Living area: approx. 150 m² (1,615 sq ft)
Usable area approx. 170 m² (1,830 sq ft)
3 rooms on the ground floor
2 rooms on the upper floor
3 bathrooms
3 (!) kitchens/kitchenettes
Basement (unknown size, I assume only partially finished, accessible only from outside)
Garage (2 parking spaces)
1 balcony (upper floor)
There were renovations in 1995 and 2010, during which the roof was insulated (I don’t know how yet), the windows were replaced with blinds (from the photos, these don’t appear to be original from 1940, but I can only say more after the viewing), full thermal insulation was applied (don’t know exactly what this means), the 3 bathrooms were renewed, and the garage and garden gates were converted to electric opening.
Currently, there are two separate living units with no internal connection (external stairs to the first floor), so one unit could initially be rented out (which is definitely an option for us).
The building is relatively narrow and long, approximately 6 x 16 m (20 x 52 ft), with a conservatory of 3 x 3.8 m (10 x 12.5 ft) attached at the widest point, and on the opposite side, the building tapers to about 4.5 m (15 ft) over the last 5 meters (all exterior dimensions). The narrow side probably cannot be extended because the property boundary is too close.
The heating consists of two separate heating circuits with gas-fired individual heating units in the basement (one per living unit), age currently unknown. Electrical circuits are supposed to be separate as well. The roof has an internal wooden paneling, so I cannot tell from the photos how it was insulated. From the outside, it looks to me as a layman like roofing felt.
The narrow layout results in an impractical room arrangement, as there is no corridor providing access to all rooms. This was worked around by designing bathrooms and kitchens as walk-through rooms. On the ground floor, one corridor leads only to a bathroom and a living kitchen, while another corridor provides access to the other rooms (kitchen, living room, small room).
Sorry that I cannot simply attach a floor plan; I currently only have those from the listing, which I am not allowed to publish here. I will provide a hand-drawn version as soon as possible.
I will try to gather further information and documents during the viewing.
Today, we drove by the property (discreetly and from the car) to better assess the location, and by now my partner also likes it (there is a playground and park next door, and a new primary school in the neighborhood).
Yes, I hope this helps with a better assessment. I understand that floor plans and more details on the condition would be much more useful, and I will provide those as soon as they are available.
Best regards
Tolentino
Roof and full thermal insulation sound good so far.
If both were done in 2010, it might be that only the windows need to be replaced—if that hasn’t been done already, of course.
The electrical system, as another major item, is still missing for me.
In addition, dividing the property into two separate units with an external staircase can be very advantageous. You can live in one unit and gradually renovate the other. Hopefully, the water supply and drainage, as well as the electrical system, can be separated too, if that hasn’t been done yet.
How do you assess your DIY skills and your self-learning abilities?
To me, this sounds like a great project for someone handy to save money. But you have to be willing and have some talent for it.
If both were done in 2010, it might be that only the windows need to be replaced—if that hasn’t been done already, of course.
The electrical system, as another major item, is still missing for me.
In addition, dividing the property into two separate units with an external staircase can be very advantageous. You can live in one unit and gradually renovate the other. Hopefully, the water supply and drainage, as well as the electrical system, can be separated too, if that hasn’t been done yet.
How do you assess your DIY skills and your self-learning abilities?
To me, this sounds like a great project for someone handy to save money. But you have to be willing and have some talent for it.
Joedreck schrieb:
The roof and full thermal insulation sound good so far.
If both were done in 2010, it might be that only the windows need replacing—assuming that hasn’t been done yet, of course.
The electrical system, as another major item, is still missing in your consideration.
Also, dividing the property into two separate living units with an external staircase can be very advantageous. You could live in one unit and renovate the other gradually. With some luck, that can work with water, sewage, and electricity too, if that hasn’t been handled already.
How do you assess your handyman skills and your ability to teach yourself?
To me, this sounds like a great project for someone with practical skills to save money. But you have to want to do it and have at least some talent. Well, as I said, I have very little experience and especially very little time (sole earner). I’d rate my talent as slightly above average and my comprehension skills as very good.
My partner has plenty of time and motivation but isn’t very resilient due to health reasons.
My father-in-law is a trained craftsman and has already renovated an even older building for himself. It’s still unclear how much time he can invest, though (he lives two hours away and is also employed).
However, he has many contacts, and my hope is that I might be able to get quite a bit done for close to cost price…
Yes, on the one hand, it’s a property with a lot of potential, but you also have to invest a lot of time and effort. Kind of like a vintage car, a labor of love.
Similar topics