ᐅ 200-300 sqm Prefabricated House or Passive House? Manufacturer? Construction Company?

Platz Haus 21 has a similar orientation to Huf

I would never build a prefabricated house, no matter how good they have become nowadays. You usually notice the difference when you have to do renovations or when you want to sell it. You have enough capital for a solid masonry house, although whether it really needs to be over 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) is another question. After all, children grow up and move out eventually, so 250 sqm (2,690 sq ft) suddenly feels huge, and when it comes time to sell the house, you first need to find someone who needs and can afford that much space.

If I were in your position, I would check whether 180–200 sqm (1,940–2,150 sq ft) would be enough; that should also be manageable from a cost perspective.

Best regards,
Dirk Grafe

It is actually surprising how long these prejudices persist.
Prefabricated houses – these can also be made from bricks (how do they compare in terms of value retention, remodeling, etc.?).
Prefabricated houses come in various quality levels – from catalog models to custom architect-designed solutions.
The same applies, by the way, to ‘solid’ construction.
Is aerated concrete really ‘solid’? Or a highly porous brick – have you ever tried using a rotary hammer?
And how should prefabricated element ceilings or prefabricated roof trusses be assessed? (Here, someone built their house ‘solidly’ by gluing together aerated concrete, and had the roof truss manufactured by a large carpentry workshop off-site and placed onto the house – the roof was installed and watertight within one day.)

There are good reasons why some people prefer ‘solid’ building methods, others prefer timber frame construction, and still others favor ‘solid wood’ – does that count as ‘solid’ or as a ‘prefabricated’ house? I have also seen timber frame structures on site that were only assembled and sheathed from individual parts during construction. Not solid, and definitely not prefabricated… That turned out to be a nice house, where remodeling afterward should not be a problem.

Regarding the often-discussed topic of ‘construction time’: sometimes a prefabricated house can be inhabited sooner from the start of planning, depending on factory capacity, weather, and the degree of prefabrication. But you can’t always rely on that! Even from the start of construction, it still depends on the workload and availability of all individual trades…

Value retention is also difficult to answer. High-quality houses always perform better in the local market environment than dilapidated properties, and the construction method plays little to no role in this. Renovation effort can be significant in both cases, but it can also be minimal in both cases – this has far more influence on the achievable sale price than the construction method. Durability? Usually not a decisive factor. The oldest houses in our village all have a masonry foundation with a braced timber frame above, filled with straw and clay.

Kind regards,
I.

Irgendwoabaier schrieb:
It is actually surprising how long these prejudices persist.

[...]

Preservation of value... is also difficult to answer.

This is not a prejudice that "lasts surprisingly long," but rather what can be observed in newer prefabricated houses and their current depreciation rates. It is also not particularly difficult to explain: the preservation of value is simply significantly lower than that of a non-prefabricated house (regardless of construction method). In other words, at the same age and with the same repair or renovation needs, the value loss of a prefab house is greater. Usually, the repair and renovation requirements after the same period are higher in prefabricated houses, which adds another factor that most owners are unaware of. This remains a minor issue as long as the owner lives in the prefab house themselves. However, when selling, the loss becomes real—or one has to wait a long time to find a buyer willing to accept this (which also happens).

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

@Dirk Grafe :

Of course, every prefab house is the same, and every solidly built house is the same as well. Naturally, there are absolutely no differences in quality or value within each type of construction.

It’s the same with cars. The difference between a Dacia and a Porsche is just the price...

Sorry, I would have expected a more nuanced perspective from you...

Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:
@Dirk Grafe :
It’s the same with cars. The only difference between a Dacia and a Porsche is the price...

Ignoring your unfortunately completely misplaced irony: No, it’s the value. That’s why I generally talk about depreciation when discussing these matters. The depreciation is significantly higher for a Porsche than for a Dacia, regardless of how their prices (!) compare in relation. This example clearly also includes the qualitative differences in construction. The problem is that there is no equivalent to the Dacia in the prefabricated house sector. If there were, it would have to be a prefab house built at the absolute lowest limit, for example around 150,000€ (about $165,000), and retain almost the same value (not price, which can be influenced by general market trends) when sold after 5–10 years. But neither of those scenarios exists, and honestly, I am not responsible for the purchasing behavior of interested buyers.

Sorry, I would have expected a more nuanced perspective from you...

I want to be polite: if the differentiation that has been consistently present in my initial posts was not clear to you, I will try to emphasize it even more clearly in the future. But honestly, I expected a less frustrating reply from you.

Best regards,
Dirk Grafe