ᐅ Affordable Homeownership – Is Buying a House with Land Still Realistic?

Hey everyone,

what are your current thoughts on owning a home? Prices have risen significantly in recent years – many people can hardly afford or are unwilling to buy a traditional house with a plot of land.

I’m currently working on a project aimed at making affordable housing more achievable again – compact, modern houses at a fair price. So, I’m interested in your opinion:

What matters most to you when it comes to a home? (e.g., plot size, garden, layout, etc.)
Would you also be open to a smaller living space (70–100 m² (750–1,075 sq ft)) or a smaller plot if the price and quality are right?

Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts.

Phew – a bit of a lot of generalization all at once...

- From my perspective, one issue is that land prices keep becoming more and more unrealistic – especially in city centers and their surrounding suburbs. The problem: many people associate a “single-family home” with owning the land as well, which should meet a certain minimum size to fulfill the “my home is my castle” idea. The result: you can’t really do much about those prices...

- Another point is that for many, a single-family home also requires a certain minimum living area – otherwise, we’re talking about a tiny house. That’s a matter of personal preference...

- And in the end, even for a tiny house, you still need a certain lot size – see problem #1.

- The icing on the cake are the requirements set by local authorities, which you can currently observe based on various projects (was it Bremen? Hamburg): they “no longer want” single-family homes – multi-family buildings are considered much more efficient...

Conclusion: difficult...

The main issue, in my opinion, is that we need to come back down to earth. During times of low interest rates, prices kept rising endlessly. And even when following discussions about floor plans, it’s always about bigger, bigger, and biggest.

People also need to let go of the idea that if their friend has 160 square meters (1,722 square feet), they want the same—or preferably even more. In the past, it was about a grand staircase like in Dallas; today, it’s about a 15 square meter (160 square feet) children’s bedroom with an en-suite bathroom.

It’s also important to become comfortable again with semi-detached houses, especially in regions where land prices have risen dramatically.

I’m also thinking about boklok again, which wasn’t a bad concept in principle, but expectations have risen so much there as well. Well, we all know how that turned out.

The good old Günter Krause already had this idea of a “people’s house,” and again, we know what became of it. So, this idea is not new.

Rübe1 schrieb:

You also have to let go of the idea that because your buddy has 160 square meters (1,722 square feet), you want the same—or even more. In the past, it was the grand Dallas-style staircase; today it's the 15 square meter (161 square feet) kids' room with an en-suite bathroom.

Whether you build a two-story 120 square meter (1,292 square feet) "rabbit hutch" or 160 square meters (1,722 square feet), it often doesn’t make much difference depending on the builder. The biggest fixed costs are not heavily influenced by size.

HuppelHuppel schrieb:

Whether you build a two-story 120sqm (1,292 sq ft) hutch or 160sqm (1,722 sq ft), it doesn’t make much difference in cost depending on the provider.

And the double garage instead of a carport, the roof terrace, the special features, etc., also don’t significantly affect the cost.
However, the 100k must still be paid for the larger house... And try telling that to those who have to budget very tightly.
This kind of mindset is exactly why the general statement that building is too expensive is becoming common.

For example, Danwood offers the Family 157 for just under 250,000, while the 1.5-story houses with 120 square meters (1,292 square feet) cost around 200,000. This is definitely worth considering.