ᐅ Is the real estate market increasingly forcing families to build their own homes?

Bookstar schrieb:
There is nothing to relativize here. Ten years ago, a single-family house cost only half as much as it does now. Interest rates account for only a decimal place...

Of course, I don’t know your situation, but for 90% of Germany, that is complete nonsense. It’s as if (with few exceptions) you could have built the same house ten years ago for half the current price.

Mathematically, that doesn’t make sense either.

With the same annuity, the difference between 4% and 1% interest is anything but just a decimal place—unless you have 80% equity.

In the USA, people in cities often have to spend about 50% of their net household income on rent. Here, it’s under 30%. Additionally, living costs (except for gasoline) are higher, and education and healthcare must be paid for privately.

In Berlin, you can live quite well for 10€ (about 11 USD) per month without utilities. In Washington D.C., that quickly goes up to 40€ (about 44 USD) without utilities. Regardless of the surprise among residents of this country that living in one of the richest countries in the world actually costs money — and the ignorance that other major countries are much more expensive, so we definitely cannot be talking about a housing bubble — what I find surprising in the original poster’s question is this: it implies that building a house is cheaper than buying one.

Bookstar schrieb:
There is nothing to relativize here. Ten years ago, a single-family house cost only half as much as it does now. Interest rates are just a minor factor...

However, when combined with the interest rates, the relative monthly burden was similarly high even ten years ago. Whether 30% or 40% of monthly income goes toward a house is debatable. People buy what they believe they can afford.

Prices are still rising today. This shows me that people can and want to pay for it. Yes, the average homeowner can still easily afford it. You just have to accept that.

It is a painful experience to admit that despite a middle income, you cannot afford to own a home. Complaining about the prices is easy, but admitting that you have spent money on overpriced things like phones, vacations, and cars, or that your income is simply too low—that is something few can do. As wise people have said here before: you need income, equity, connections, and luck. If you have none of these, you won’t succeed in buying a property.

fragg schrieb:
It implies that building is cheaper than buying.

That can sometimes be true. It certainly can’t be generalized, but in individual cases or certain regions, it is possible. We ultimately decided to build a house because existing properties are currently offered at such high prices that, when you add the necessary renovation or refurbishment costs, you quickly reach the same total expenditure as with our new build. Since older properties (often half-timbered houses here) can also come with unpleasant surprises regarding their structural condition, we preferred to opt for a new build. Of course, existing homes are often larger, but if you don’t need the extra space, it just means unnecessary additional costs in purchase and maintenance.

kaho674 schrieb:
We also considered converting a property into residential space because the demand is so high. The fact is, it’s not profitable. Construction costs are so high that rents (in DD) do not keep up for a long time.

So we thought that with increasing demand, the city might offer some kind of subsidy to make it worthwhile. Nothing at all! It’s all nonsense. No one receives any support. Sure, they can build silos for low-income tenants with 15 years of rent control. And I deliberately say “low-income tenants.” In the buildings where this has been done, people defecate in the elevators every day and everything is vandalized. Landlords are constantly renovating. Pointless.
As long as no one protests on the streets about the housing shortage, no one cares.

Besides that, I agree with @hampshire that it’s complaining at a high level. There is still plenty of space and land for building here in the East. Not everyone can have a home on the outskirts of Munich or Cologne, after all. So come here if having a house with a garden is that important to you.

In general, my husband and I regularly argue about whether the government is responsible for ensuring that everyone has affordable housing in a big city. I say “No, unrealistic” – if you can’t afford it, you’ll have to live outside. He says “Yes” – housing is a basic right and the city must offer something for people with low income. So far, we haven’t found a solution.

Here I am torn!! Are low-income workers in public service jobs like tram drivers, nurses, social workers poor, low-lifes, or just unwise for choosing such professions? It’s crazy how high rents are rising in urban areas and these people are forced to sacrifice quality of life by having to commute.

HilfeHilfe schrieb:
Are low-income public workers like tram drivers, nurses, social workers poor, trashy, or just stupid for doing such jobs?

Was that question rhetorical?
Low-income workers don’t earn little because they contribute less or are less intelligent, but because society simply doesn’t pay more for these services. As if we could do without them… and as if everyone is able to care for children, the elderly, or the sick, while only the intelligent work in programming (or collect the trash, etc.).

Low salaries for essential jobs combined with society withdrawing from building affordable housing. So the nurse simply can’t afford to live there. How “trashy” or nice, smart or naive she is doesn’t matter at all.