Hello everyone,
I have been following the forum for a while and really appreciate it. There is a very positive and helpful atmosphere here that I miss in other forums.
Now to my concern. My wife, our two daughters (1 and 7 years old), and I bought a small mid-terrace house in 2011. As you can tell from the age of our youngest, we were still just three back then, and the 70m² (750 sq ft) of the house were enough for us. Now that we are four, we need more space.
The prices for existing properties in the areas we are looking in Kiel are so high that after a long search, we decided it might be worth building, even if it costs a bit more.
We found a great plot of land in a new development in a neighboring municipality and have had initial talks with the developer the land is tied to.
We had already been mentally preparing for building a house when, over the weekend, our neighbor came to us and said that they (as tenants) would be moving out of the adjacent house.
On the spur of the moment, we called the owners and asked if they might be interested in selling. Long story short: we are now facing the decision to either combine our terrace house with the neighboring house or continue with our plan to build new.
Of course, no one can make the decision for us or help directly, but I would be interested in hearing your opinions.
The choice is between:
- A connected mid-terrace house, 350m² (3,770 sq ft) plot, 140m² (1,510 sq ft) living space, 80m² (860 sq ft) basement from 1957, in a well-known and very nice location
- A new detached house on a 560m² (6,030 sq ft) plot, 125m² (1,345 sq ft) living space, no basement, in a pleasant suburban area
The new build would be about 50,000 EUR more expensive, but because of higher loan costs (we would probably have to keep the old financing) the monthly burden would be about the same.
Is it economically sensible to keep the old house? We feel very comfortable there. Or would the new build be a more future-proof choice, especially since we have already decided to move to the neighboring municipality?
As I said, the decision depends on many factors, and nobody should or can make it for us, but I would be very interested in your perspective—looking ahead—whether you think keeping the old house or going for the new build outside our current area makes more sense.
If this question is inappropriate, feel free to delete it. 🙂
Thanks and best regards,
Chrischan
I have been following the forum for a while and really appreciate it. There is a very positive and helpful atmosphere here that I miss in other forums.
Now to my concern. My wife, our two daughters (1 and 7 years old), and I bought a small mid-terrace house in 2011. As you can tell from the age of our youngest, we were still just three back then, and the 70m² (750 sq ft) of the house were enough for us. Now that we are four, we need more space.
The prices for existing properties in the areas we are looking in Kiel are so high that after a long search, we decided it might be worth building, even if it costs a bit more.
We found a great plot of land in a new development in a neighboring municipality and have had initial talks with the developer the land is tied to.
We had already been mentally preparing for building a house when, over the weekend, our neighbor came to us and said that they (as tenants) would be moving out of the adjacent house.
On the spur of the moment, we called the owners and asked if they might be interested in selling. Long story short: we are now facing the decision to either combine our terrace house with the neighboring house or continue with our plan to build new.
Of course, no one can make the decision for us or help directly, but I would be interested in hearing your opinions.
The choice is between:
- A connected mid-terrace house, 350m² (3,770 sq ft) plot, 140m² (1,510 sq ft) living space, 80m² (860 sq ft) basement from 1957, in a well-known and very nice location
- A new detached house on a 560m² (6,030 sq ft) plot, 125m² (1,345 sq ft) living space, no basement, in a pleasant suburban area
The new build would be about 50,000 EUR more expensive, but because of higher loan costs (we would probably have to keep the old financing) the monthly burden would be about the same.
Is it economically sensible to keep the old house? We feel very comfortable there. Or would the new build be a more future-proof choice, especially since we have already decided to move to the neighboring municipality?
As I said, the decision depends on many factors, and nobody should or can make it for us, but I would be very interested in your perspective—looking ahead—whether you think keeping the old house or going for the new build outside our current area makes more sense.
If this question is inappropriate, feel free to delete it. 🙂
Thanks and best regards,
Chrischan
J
Justifier24 Apr 2014 13:50I would choose the new build. Otherwise, you end up with two houses, each having its own kitchen, bathroom, etc., meaning major renovation work not only on the outside (connecting both houses) but also inside, since you basically have to hollow out everything and remodel it entirely to suit your needs...
Chrischan schrieb:
Would you consider the inheritance? I would like to leave something material to my children as well, and a 40-year-old house is certainly better than a 100-year-old one. ...Think about it and then quickly dismiss the idea. The house could later become a source of conflict between siblings who have since become estranged. That’s why you should always think about yourself; the children can take care of themselves later 🙂
On the topic:
Personally, I like old houses; they have charm and a mature garden, often with a better and more integrated location within the town than a new development.
I also appreciate unconventional renovations, which an architect usually cannot achieve in a new build.
If you are undecided, I would at least check with the building authority about how combining two terraced houses (or row houses) would work.
Otherwise, if I were you, I would weigh the pros and cons of old versus new... What does the terraced house offer, and what does the new build provide (infrastructure, location, sunlight, garden, mature trees, atmosphere, courtyard, garage, basement, built-in wardrobes versus floor-level shower, and so on)? What do you value most? Existing character or modernity?
The fact is, a new build with a carport, storage, landscaped garden, kitchen, and additional extras like new furniture will likely cost significantly more than originally planned 🙂
B
Bauexperte24 Apr 2014 16:06Hello Chrischan,
There is also the option to keep the facades and create one modern house from the interior of the two, using the latest construction techniques…
Either way: first clarify your financial possibilities with the bank. Then find a certified expert for existing properties and visit both houses with them; after that, engage an architect who can do more than just fill out paperwork. Once you reach this stage, look for a builder capable of carrying out such a renovation. Only when all the hard numbers are on the table—including the costs of having to move out during construction—can you make an economically sound decision about which direction to take.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Chrischan schrieb:When was the terraced house built? What does “50,000 EUR more expensive” refer to exactly?
The choice is between:
- A terraced mid-terrace house, 350m² (0.09 acres) plot, 140m² (1507 sq ft) living space, 80m² (861 sq ft) basement from 1957 in a well-known and very nice location
- New detached single-family house on a 560m² (0.14 acres) plot, 125m² (1345 sq ft) living space, no basement in a nice suburban community.
The new build would be about 50,000 EUR more expensive, but the financial strain would remain roughly the same due to higher loan costs (would probably have to keep the old financing running).
Chrischan schrieb:This question can only be answered rationally if you know the costs involved in merging the two houses.
Is it "economically sensible" to keep the old house? We feel very comfortable there. Or would it maybe be more future-proof to choose the new build, especially since we’ve already decided to move to the neighboring community.
There is also the option to keep the facades and create one modern house from the interior of the two, using the latest construction techniques…
Either way: first clarify your financial possibilities with the bank. Then find a certified expert for existing properties and visit both houses with them; after that, engage an architect who can do more than just fill out paperwork. Once you reach this stage, look for a builder capable of carrying out such a renovation. Only when all the hard numbers are on the table—including the costs of having to move out during construction—can you make an economically sound decision about which direction to take.
Chrischan schrieb:Emotionally, you’ve probably already answered your own question 😀
As I said, the decision depends on many factors, and no one here should or can take that decision for us. But from a future perspective, I’m interested in whether you would consider the old house or the new build outside the immediate area to be more reasonable.
Chrischan schrieb:There are only silly answers 😉
If this is a silly question, feel free to delete it.
Best regards, Bauexperte
C
Chrischan25 Apr 2014 08:09Good morning,
thank you for the many helpful responses. 🙂
As expected, there is simply no clear-cut decision. That’s why we have now settled on a primary option (1a) and a secondary option (1b), letting our gut feeling and hearts decide. We will follow Bauexperte’s suggestion and have an architect review the financing and construction efforts required to merge the terraced houses. If this fails due to cost, feasibility, or any other reason, we will confidently continue with the house construction as planned.
😉
Many thanks to everyone. If we do proceed with a renovation, I will definitely “bother” you again with the floor plan design. 🙂
thank you for the many helpful responses. 🙂
As expected, there is simply no clear-cut decision. That’s why we have now settled on a primary option (1a) and a secondary option (1b), letting our gut feeling and hearts decide. We will follow Bauexperte’s suggestion and have an architect review the financing and construction efforts required to merge the terraced houses. If this fails due to cost, feasibility, or any other reason, we will confidently continue with the house construction as planned.
On an emotional level, you’ve already answered your question yourself 😀
😉
Many thanks to everyone. If we do proceed with a renovation, I will definitely “bother” you again with the floor plan design. 🙂
Hello, Chrischan,
a small additional note from me: I believe that, fundamentally, you should listen to yourself to see whether you are more of a new-build person or prefer renovating. We bought an older house ourselves, but with only minor renovations. An advantage of an existing property is, for example, that from day one you have 30-year-old trees in the garden, everything is already finished, the property is fenced, local amenities are available, and so on.
In a new development area, you might have construction noise for 10 years, eventually the road is completed, and by the time you have shade in the garden, you’ll be old. 😉 I usually don’t like the location and appearance of pure new-build areas either; that wouldn’t be for me because I want to have amenities around me for living.
From a professional perspective, I also believe that the value retention or appreciation in some residential areas or new developments may not develop in favor of the owners.
Therefore, it is quite possible that a well-maintained terraced house can still be worth more in 30 or 50 years than a 30- or 50-year-old house in a new development area that people no longer want to live in.
Kind regards
Dirk Grafe
a small additional note from me: I believe that, fundamentally, you should listen to yourself to see whether you are more of a new-build person or prefer renovating. We bought an older house ourselves, but with only minor renovations. An advantage of an existing property is, for example, that from day one you have 30-year-old trees in the garden, everything is already finished, the property is fenced, local amenities are available, and so on.
In a new development area, you might have construction noise for 10 years, eventually the road is completed, and by the time you have shade in the garden, you’ll be old. 😉 I usually don’t like the location and appearance of pure new-build areas either; that wouldn’t be for me because I want to have amenities around me for living.
From a professional perspective, I also believe that the value retention or appreciation in some residential areas or new developments may not develop in favor of the owners.
Therefore, it is quite possible that a well-maintained terraced house can still be worth more in 30 or 50 years than a 30- or 50-year-old house in a new development area that people no longer want to live in.
Kind regards
Dirk Grafe
Similar topics