Hello everyone,
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
And turnkey for you now also includes painting and so on?
I just noticed: you’re not finished yet but still working on the roof covering...
Although Schleswig-Holstein is also very affordable like Lower Saxony, I still don’t see any basis for discussion about what is economically sensible. The options are very limited within a low-cost budget.
Regards, Yvonne
I just noticed: you’re not finished yet but still working on the roof covering...
Although Schleswig-Holstein is also very affordable like Lower Saxony, I still don’t see any basis for discussion about what is economically sensible. The options are very limited within a low-cost budget.
Regards, Yvonne
B
Bieber08157 Aug 2017 17:09HAL06120 schrieb:
Showing off is more common than admitting you can build affordably. I personally feel uncomfortable if I seem to be paying too much... Unfortunately, it's hard to compare the services you actually get.
Regarding the question:
I would build according to the energy saving regulations and invest as much as possible in insulation. For the interior finish, I would focus on durability (hardwood flooring, tiles, etc.). It might be more expensive, but with proper care, it can last a lifetime.
Skip gimmicks (for example: LED strips on the stairs; there was an interesting thread about this recently).
And very importantly: don’t build bigger than necessary! Around 120 to 140 m² (1300 to 1500 sq ft) instead of 160 to 180 m² (1700 to 1900 sq ft); one bathroom instead of two, etc. (as a rough guideline for four people).
If I remember correctly, this topic has already been discussed here...
ypg schrieb:
And turnkey for you now also includes painter etc? I believe that would mean move-in ready. So no: painting and flooring in the living and bedrooms are not included. However, since this was about the house price excluding additional construction costs and I wrote "<", yes, painting and flooring would also be included within the <200000, even though these are not provided by the general contractor.
kaho674 schrieb:
I think that when the budget is this tight, the question isn’t whether you pay for something unnecessary. With those 200,000, you should be happy just to meet the minimum standards.That’s exactly what I think!
Turnkey or ready-to-move-in can mean anything the builder decides.
And I need to correct my previous post: of course, I built without clay tiles on the roof... they were simply too expensive.
Folks, what do we really know? He says he lives in SH. That could be Norderstedt or Wedel, which would be expensive, or Süderstapel, which would be very affordable, and they’d practically throw fully serviced land at him for 40€/m² (about $40 per square meter).
He says he wants to spend around 200,000€ (about $200,000) for the house—excluding additional costs, land, utility connections, landscaping, etc. So, a classic turnkey house. Here in SH, everyone sells turnkey houses with a concrete slab foundation but without painting, wallpapering, or a fitted kitchen. He doesn’t say he can’t spend more. He’s just asking: Is it economically worthwhile—not ideally or ecologically—to accept the extra cost for KFW 55 or even 40 standards? And he wants to know if it’s better to build solid (massive construction) or prefabricated. He also says a simple house would be fine; they’re not picky.
I tried to give a factual answer to his questions. Instead, he faced an outcry ranging from “never ever,” “better rent,” “impossible price,” to “you have no choice anyway.” And our house is used as an example: “If you want that, you’ll end up like them.” (Meanwhile, what we built in our neighborhood is completely normal—everyone here builds more or less at that level.)
Let me make it clear: I’m not saying that anyone spending 500,000€ (about $500,000) in Wiesbaden is crazy. That may be the standard there and unchangeable. But please accept that it’s different elsewhere. And yes, I still believe the KFW standards are incentives to improve insulation, use newer or more expensive technology; they are linked to subsidies. But those subsidies have been more than offset by contractors’ price increases, so economically, in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense. I’m open to counterexamples. I could be wrong—that wouldn’t hurt my pride. Karsten
He says he wants to spend around 200,000€ (about $200,000) for the house—excluding additional costs, land, utility connections, landscaping, etc. So, a classic turnkey house. Here in SH, everyone sells turnkey houses with a concrete slab foundation but without painting, wallpapering, or a fitted kitchen. He doesn’t say he can’t spend more. He’s just asking: Is it economically worthwhile—not ideally or ecologically—to accept the extra cost for KFW 55 or even 40 standards? And he wants to know if it’s better to build solid (massive construction) or prefabricated. He also says a simple house would be fine; they’re not picky.
I tried to give a factual answer to his questions. Instead, he faced an outcry ranging from “never ever,” “better rent,” “impossible price,” to “you have no choice anyway.” And our house is used as an example: “If you want that, you’ll end up like them.” (Meanwhile, what we built in our neighborhood is completely normal—everyone here builds more or less at that level.)
Let me make it clear: I’m not saying that anyone spending 500,000€ (about $500,000) in Wiesbaden is crazy. That may be the standard there and unchangeable. But please accept that it’s different elsewhere. And yes, I still believe the KFW standards are incentives to improve insulation, use newer or more expensive technology; they are linked to subsidies. But those subsidies have been more than offset by contractors’ price increases, so economically, in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense. I’m open to counterexamples. I could be wrong—that wouldn’t hurt my pride. Karsten
Similar topics