ᐅ Building a House According to the Energy Performance Act: Still Acceptable or Better to Aim for KfW 55 Standard?

WilderSueden schrieb:

You will probably no longer receive subsidies for retrofitting. The key term is the solar obligation for new constructions or roof renovations. Either you install it right away or you will have to live without it in the long term.

There will still be subsidies for those not subject to this obligation. This was also the case with BAFA for heat pumps; the subsidy for a new heating system was only granted to those who were not already required to replace their oil heating system.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

If you can afford it financially, 40, 40plus, or 55 standards are definitely better, also considering the resale value. For various reasons, we ourselves only build according to the Energy Saving Ordinance.

That's roughly like recommending organic products from the local farm shop, but only shopping at a discount store yourself.

driver55 schrieb:

That’s roughly like recommending organic products from the local farm shop while yourself only shop at the discount store.

The financial means of customers vary, as does their knowledge about nutrition. One person might be 15 minutes away by bike from the farm shop, while another might need half an hour by car. There are also different allergies and intolerances to consider, and so on. ;-)

Two things are being confused here. Of course, every house today must meet minimum energy efficiency standards. It's perfectly fine to simply aim to meet these standards. There is no need for any KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) program for that. The KfW standards are primarily funding conditions that specify not only energy efficiency requirements but also how to achieve them. Choosing to forgo funding and taking a different approach does not necessarily mean building a worse or less efficient house.

When reselling, the stated KfW standard may be a recognized label, but it is not a true quality feature that has decisive relevance for the property valuation.

I find the advice from @11ant very valuable: Build what your building partner regularly constructs and is therefore experienced in. If that does not match your preferences, find another building partner.

hampshire schrieb:

I find @11ant’s advice very valuable: Build what your construction partner frequently and therefore routinely builds. If that differs from your wishes, look for another construction partner.

However, I – as you probably do too, right? – would give priority to the "chemistry" with the builder rather than the "award-winning product" in case of doubt.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

While I—like you, I suppose?—usually prefer trusting the "chemistry" with the builder over just choosing the "award-winning material."

Yes, that’s a fundamental rule: never buy from people you don’t like, who give you a bad gut feeling, or who show no interest in you or at least your wishes.
And before anyone jumps to the trendy but illogical conclusion that things can still go wrong despite this, I’ll say it upfront: there is no guarantee everything will work out. At the same time, there are ways to influence the outcome—especially when it comes to choosing your contractual partners.