Hello,
I have read so much and I’m completely confused. I’m not alone, because with many topics it seems that the original poster mainly wants to see the exact answer to their problem as the first reply and then stick to it without further consideration.
So if I ask a few questions now, I’m not expecting universally valid answers. (I can already imagine €uro responding that you simply have to do the calculations.) Of course, it may still happen that I ask questions that cannot be answered otherwise. I am a layperson.
Does a house built to the Energy Saving Ordinance (a house that meets the minimum requirements) at least offer a reasonable basis? I have read so much about KfW 70 that it seems anyone who doesn’t meet this standard is doing something wrong. (I can already imagine my future neighbors turning up their noses.)
If it’s affordable, then go for KfW 70? Is KfW 70 not always cost-effective?
If you aim for KfW 70, should you always do a cost-benefit analysis with real values? (I often read about DIN standards here via €uro.)
The basis for my question is an offer for a house (bungalow, 104m² (1120 sq ft), solid construction).
This includes a condensing boiler and solar thermal system for domestic hot water preparation.
For KfW 70, additional insulation and a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery would be added.
The extra cost would also be affordable.
Overall, this sounds “too simple” to me. Is the right approach really just to add various components and that’s it? As long as the values for KfW 70 are achieved?
That seems to be the standard program. Condensing boiler and solar thermal are always initially included. Then the rest to reach KfW 70 is done the simplest way. But maybe this is not the best or most economical solution.
At the moment, I am leaning against KfW 70 and instead would leave out the solar and insulate 15% better (15% rule, right?).
A worthwhile alternative?
At least I would like an outlook on how to make the best of the situation. Which direction should I take in planning?
Will the building company do proper calculations like this for me, or is it better to have them done externally right away?
Best regards,
hg
I have read so much and I’m completely confused. I’m not alone, because with many topics it seems that the original poster mainly wants to see the exact answer to their problem as the first reply and then stick to it without further consideration.
So if I ask a few questions now, I’m not expecting universally valid answers. (I can already imagine €uro responding that you simply have to do the calculations.) Of course, it may still happen that I ask questions that cannot be answered otherwise. I am a layperson.
Does a house built to the Energy Saving Ordinance (a house that meets the minimum requirements) at least offer a reasonable basis? I have read so much about KfW 70 that it seems anyone who doesn’t meet this standard is doing something wrong. (I can already imagine my future neighbors turning up their noses.)
If it’s affordable, then go for KfW 70? Is KfW 70 not always cost-effective?
If you aim for KfW 70, should you always do a cost-benefit analysis with real values? (I often read about DIN standards here via €uro.)
The basis for my question is an offer for a house (bungalow, 104m² (1120 sq ft), solid construction).
This includes a condensing boiler and solar thermal system for domestic hot water preparation.
For KfW 70, additional insulation and a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery would be added.
The extra cost would also be affordable.
Overall, this sounds “too simple” to me. Is the right approach really just to add various components and that’s it? As long as the values for KfW 70 are achieved?
That seems to be the standard program. Condensing boiler and solar thermal are always initially included. Then the rest to reach KfW 70 is done the simplest way. But maybe this is not the best or most economical solution.
At the moment, I am leaning against KfW 70 and instead would leave out the solar and insulate 15% better (15% rule, right?).
A worthwhile alternative?
At least I would like an outlook on how to make the best of the situation. Which direction should I take in planning?
Will the building company do proper calculations like this for me, or is it better to have them done externally right away?
Best regards,
hg
Hello,
With the KfW levels, subsidized loans are tempting. However, it is often forgotten that these are not giveaways and the investment (capital service) is correspondingly higher compared to the “standard case.”
Best regards.
hagegage schrieb:There could indeed be sufficient and valid reasons for that. However, it’s also perfectly fine not to do it, as there is no obligation.
(I can already see €uro responding that you just have to run the calculations). ..
hagegage schrieb:Doing something "wrong" is just as relative as: fat, thin, long, short, expensive, cheap! Besides, who builds for their future neighbors? How would they even know the building’s efficiency status?
..., giving the impression that anyone who doesn’t meet this standard is doing something wrong. (I can already imagine all my future neighbors turning up their noses)
hagegage schrieb:Then why bother? The goal has been set. Either it’s affordable or not. If not, then it simply won’t work.
....If you set KfW 70 as a goal, should you always carry out a cost-benefit analysis with real values? (I have often read about DIN here via €uro)
hagegage schrieb:For most uninformed builders, yes.
...Overall, this sounds too simple to me. Is the right way simply to add various components and that’s it? As long as you achieve the values for KfW 70?
hagegage schrieb:There are many reasons for this, some of which are related to the verification process.
...This also seems to be the standard approach. Condensing boilers and solar panels are usually included from the start.
hagegage schrieb:Definitely! I have even planned a “non-certified” passive house with a gas condensing boiler before, to general dismay.
...At the moment, I prefer not to aim for KfW 70, but rather to omit solar and instead improve insulation by 15%. (15% rule, right?). A worthwhile alternative?
With the KfW levels, subsidized loans are tempting. However, it is often forgotten that these are not giveaways and the investment (capital service) is correspondingly higher compared to the “standard case.”
hagegage schrieb:That’s a tricky question that no one can really answer. If it is a general contractor, they will always try to present their standard package in the best light.
...Will the construction company realistically run such calculations for me?...
Best regards.
B
Bauexperte13 Feb 2012 11:58Hello,
Similarly, people approach building a house; they have already used a hammer, even put wall coverings on walls; they may also know how to build a drywall partition. Why shouldn’t they be able to build a house as well with their “existing knowledge” — enhanced by forums like this one? The problem is: although there are standards in Germany (BRD) for everything, unfortunately there is no mandatory training for salespeople, and it’s not uncommon to experience a rude awakening when the advice from other, probably more experienced users (who obviously have also worked with hammer and chisel) and/or salespeople validates one’s “existing knowledge.”
Of course—how else? My area of expertise is solid or masonry housing, so I’ll use an example from that field. A classic detached single-family home of 120 sqm (square meters) living space (see attachment), monolithic on a slab, costs about 180,000 Euros according to the current Energy Saving Ordinance; the envelope and built-in basic technology are already aligned with KfW 70 in case the client wants to upgrade to the efficiency standard later. The step to KfW 70 costs about 10,000-12,000 Euros; the exact amount can only be determined after calculations by a structural engineer or building services planner. Our customers report that for a KfW 70 efficiency house, heating and hot water costs come to about 600-800 Euros/month, depending on shower usage.
To be clear: the vast majority of providers build decent houses and deliver good performance—even if the housebuilding forum suggests otherwise (satisfied homeowners rarely visit forums). However, they cannot guarantee the level of customer care/contact that smaller to medium local contractors generally provide. Additionally, these local contractors do not have to finance a comparable administrative overhead like larger providers do, nor can their salespeople afford to discredit their employer. I jokingly say: “our clients know where my car is parked.”
I always recommend working with a local architect and a local building contractor; the architect knows the "players" and will not provide bad advice to clients. Although it is often said that the architect cannot maintain the estimated price, that does not apply when the building contractor recommended by the architect calculates the new build based on these specifications before signing the contract—we work exactly like this, by the way. Another advantage of this approach is that the contractor’s offer truly includes all costs—also painters, floor coverings, pathways, or terrace construction. What remains are purely land costs like property transfer tax, utility connections, and notary/court fees. Equipped like this, plus a few extra Euros for extras (like a new kitchen), no financing will fail due to unexpected additional costs. Many salespeople struggle to name typical ancillary building costs—at least 35,000-40,000 Euros without additional foundation costs, painter/floor covering works, or landscaping including garage—because the priority is to secure the contract.
Another advantage: once the collaboration with an architect is agreed on, the architect also creates working drawings for the builder. I have often experienced that large, especially nationwide providers, do not create detailed working plans. If something goes wrong during construction, blame is quickly shifted to the contractor. However, this blame is often misplaced because the contractor only implements what the provider has given him in the working plans.
Among other things, poor working plans are a logical consequence of the “cheap is cool” attitude of most homeowners. Everything has to be cheap because the “knowledgeable” homeowner knows how to handle hammer and chisel, and of course, everything is so much cheaper at the home improvement store. When a project sinks due to this “help” from the homeowner, you can find plenty of reports in forums—including this building forum.
I have lost count of how many times I have written that a house section—when comparing providers—must always show roughly the same bottom line price ± 6,000-8,000 Euros. Unfortunately, like €uro’s answers here, this rarely finds a receptive audience.
For you, this means you and your spouse/family first need to decide which route you want to take: a large provider or a regional building contractor. Only after that should the question of Energy Saving Ordinance or KfW 70 be clarified based on demonstrable documents and layouts developed together with the architect; this process applies both to large providers and local contractors.
Kind regards
hagegage schrieb:This is generally human nature. For example, when someone wants to buy a refrigerator, they go online and quickly get comparable information. Then they just need to check their budget and can place an order—preferably online again. At this point, they usually don't think about necessary maintenance or repairs, nor do they consider the probably more competent local retailer. Why should they care now that in the future there might only be forklift drivers without technical expertise, especially if this example (which unfortunately is becoming more common) sets a precedent?
I have read so much and am completely confused. And I'm not alone, because with many topics it seems like the original poster just wants to see a concrete answer to their problem as the first reply and then stick to it without further reflection.
Similarly, people approach building a house; they have already used a hammer, even put wall coverings on walls; they may also know how to build a drywall partition. Why shouldn’t they be able to build a house as well with their “existing knowledge” — enhanced by forums like this one? The problem is: although there are standards in Germany (BRD) for everything, unfortunately there is no mandatory training for salespeople, and it’s not uncommon to experience a rude awakening when the advice from other, probably more experienced users (who obviously have also worked with hammer and chisel) and/or salespeople validates one’s “existing knowledge.”
hagegage schrieb:€uro is right about that too. He and I respond knowing that only a tiny fraction of users (for the reasons mentioned above) will actually take his well-founded answers to heart, since these answers usually involve costs; money that most prefer to invest in “extras” rather than in the safety of building materials.
If I ask a few questions now, I don’t expect universally valid answers. (I can see €uro already replying that it simply has to be calculated through).
hagegage schrieb:First of all, you’re not building your house for your neighbors — or do you wear that label on your sleeve? Secondly, yes, if you can afford it or want to, you should aim to build a KfW 70 efficiency house; at least design the masonry and basic technology (like underfloor heating) towards that goal. With the latter option, you always have the possibility to upgrade later to KfW 70 or better, since it is always a matter of technology.
Does a house built according to the Energy Saving Ordinance (i.e. a house that meets minimum requirements) also provide a reasonable foundation? I have read so much about KfW 70 that it seems anyone not reaching this standard is doing something wrong. (I can already picture all my future neighbors turning up their noses)
hagegage schrieb:
If affordable, then KfW 70? KfW 70 is not always economical? If you aim for KfW 70, then always a cost/benefit analysis with real numbers? (I have often read DIN [standards] here via €uro)
Of course—how else? My area of expertise is solid or masonry housing, so I’ll use an example from that field. A classic detached single-family home of 120 sqm (square meters) living space (see attachment), monolithic on a slab, costs about 180,000 Euros according to the current Energy Saving Ordinance; the envelope and built-in basic technology are already aligned with KfW 70 in case the client wants to upgrade to the efficiency standard later. The step to KfW 70 costs about 10,000-12,000 Euros; the exact amount can only be determined after calculations by a structural engineer or building services planner. Our customers report that for a KfW 70 efficiency house, heating and hot water costs come to about 600-800 Euros/month, depending on shower usage.
hagegage schrieb:From experience, I doubt these measures alone will be sufficient. It also depends on the site's orientation to the sun, the planned U-value (thermal transmittance) of the windows and frames, etc.
The question is based on an offer for a house. (Bungalow, 104 sqm (1120 sq ft), solid construction.) It includes a condensing boiler and solar thermal for hot water. To reach KfW 70, there would be more insulation and a heat recovery ventilation system. The extra cost would also be affordable.
hagegage schrieb:That means initially it’s a house offered according to the valid Energy Saving Ordinance. The question of whether the Energy Saving Ordinance or KfW 70 is more economical cannot be answered simply by considering the costs of additional technology or subsidies. It also depends on what you want to do with the house: live in it yourself, possibly rent it out later, sell, or pass it on as an inheritance?
That seems to be the standard package. Condensing boiler and solar thermal are always included initially. The rest to reach KfW 70 is then the easiest way. But maybe not the best or most economical.
hagegage schrieb:There is no right or wrong here! With either option, you will have costs. Only you can decide for which approach you want to invest the necessary money. However, I strongly advise you not to omit a controlled mechanical ventilation system when increasing insulation levels; the house will become too airtight otherwise, and you shouldn't sacrifice that luxury!
At the moment, I tend not to choose KfW 70, but rather skip solar and insulate 15% better instead. (15% rule, right?). A worth considering alternative?
hagegage schrieb:As can be clearly seen from my answers here, I am not a fan of "all-rounders," especially not those operating nationwide. €uro can sing a song about calculations for necessary technology, and I could tell a different story about dealing with building contractors/homeowners.
At least I would like an outlook on how I can get the best out of the situation. Which route should I take for planning? Will the building contractor calculate this reasonably or would it be better to have it calculated externally?
To be clear: the vast majority of providers build decent houses and deliver good performance—even if the housebuilding forum suggests otherwise (satisfied homeowners rarely visit forums). However, they cannot guarantee the level of customer care/contact that smaller to medium local contractors generally provide. Additionally, these local contractors do not have to finance a comparable administrative overhead like larger providers do, nor can their salespeople afford to discredit their employer. I jokingly say: “our clients know where my car is parked.”
I always recommend working with a local architect and a local building contractor; the architect knows the "players" and will not provide bad advice to clients. Although it is often said that the architect cannot maintain the estimated price, that does not apply when the building contractor recommended by the architect calculates the new build based on these specifications before signing the contract—we work exactly like this, by the way. Another advantage of this approach is that the contractor’s offer truly includes all costs—also painters, floor coverings, pathways, or terrace construction. What remains are purely land costs like property transfer tax, utility connections, and notary/court fees. Equipped like this, plus a few extra Euros for extras (like a new kitchen), no financing will fail due to unexpected additional costs. Many salespeople struggle to name typical ancillary building costs—at least 35,000-40,000 Euros without additional foundation costs, painter/floor covering works, or landscaping including garage—because the priority is to secure the contract.
Another advantage: once the collaboration with an architect is agreed on, the architect also creates working drawings for the builder. I have often experienced that large, especially nationwide providers, do not create detailed working plans. If something goes wrong during construction, blame is quickly shifted to the contractor. However, this blame is often misplaced because the contractor only implements what the provider has given him in the working plans.
Among other things, poor working plans are a logical consequence of the “cheap is cool” attitude of most homeowners. Everything has to be cheap because the “knowledgeable” homeowner knows how to handle hammer and chisel, and of course, everything is so much cheaper at the home improvement store. When a project sinks due to this “help” from the homeowner, you can find plenty of reports in forums—including this building forum.
I have lost count of how many times I have written that a house section—when comparing providers—must always show roughly the same bottom line price ± 6,000-8,000 Euros. Unfortunately, like €uro’s answers here, this rarely finds a receptive audience.
For you, this means you and your spouse/family first need to decide which route you want to take: a large provider or a regional building contractor. Only after that should the question of Energy Saving Ordinance or KfW 70 be clarified based on demonstrable documents and layouts developed together with the architect; this process applies both to large providers and local contractors.
Kind regards
Similar topics