ᐅ Renovating a 1960s House: Questionable Expert Recommendations?

Created on: 1 May 2021 12:16
S
schwalbe
Hello everyone,

I have been following this forum for a while and have now registered due to a current situation. I would appreciate your assessment.

My partner and I are both in our mid-30s, have a young son (15 months old), and are planning to buy a detached single-family house in Middle Franconia (800m² (8600 sq ft) plot without slope, house built in 1959, approximately 123m² (1324 sq ft) of living space) for 360,000 EUR including purchase-related costs. Yesterday, I visited the property with an expert and subsequently committed to the real estate agent. The house has been reserved for us, and we will be able to purchase it.

My partner (a civil servant teacher) is absolutely convinced about managing construction projects. I am an engineer specializing in energy-saving measures, but professionally I mostly work with large ventilation systems, combined heat and power plants, and boiler systems in the triple-digit kilowatt range, with almost no experience in insulation. However, I do have some technical knowledge and experience estimating costs.

Here are the key facts in brief, from bottom to top:
  • Basement: boiler room + oil storage, workshop, storage/pantry, laundry room with external stairs leading to the garden.
  • Ground floor: entrance hall, toilet, small bathroom with bathtub, living room with a wood stove and patio door (garden access), dining room, kitchen.
  • Upper floor: bathroom (also with wooden floor and carpet on top), 3 bedrooms.
  • Attic, accessible via folding stairs: two small, identical rooms. I estimate about 6m² (65 sq ft) each; this area was not included in the stated living space (123m²). Above these rooms is about 0.8m (2.6 ft) of space up to the ridge.

Current condition:
  • A leak in the workshop: the electrical line entry point is leaking. During heavy rain, about 2 buckets of water enter.
  • Some basement ceilings are covered with old-looking insulation, which appears to be a thin, homemade foam polystyrene layer.
  • Heating: oil heating system, installed in 1999. Gas connection is also available in the house.
  • Electrical wiring is two-wire.
  • Floors are wooden planks everywhere. Most rooms have carpets laid on top.
  • Exterior walls according to the floor plan are 30cm (12 inches) brick with plaster on top.
  • The gable roof was re-covered around 1980 (clay tiles) and has mineral wood fiber insulation between rafters. On the room side there is a "straw mat plaster" and wood paneling. No irregularities are visible from outside; the tiles are just a bit mossy. From inside, you can look directly under the ridge and see the beams with no signs of moisture or similar issues.

Before the expert assessment, we thought this would be a major renovation and planned to start from scratch.
In other words: remove all wiring (water, electricity, heating) and install new ones, insulate the facade, insulate the roof, install new triple-glazed windows. Also, all bathrooms/toilets and the kitchen would be fully renewed. We estimated the total cost for these measures to be a maximum of 240,000 EUR. Friends of ours who completely renovated a similar property three years ago rounded our estimate up to 300,000 EUR and carried out a full renovation with government subsidies and grants.

Now the findings and the expert’s opinion from yesterday:
In advance: I arranged this expert through an online platform and the process had to be quite quick. I spoke with him on the phone beforehand to outline the planned renovation scope and was curious who would show up. He is around 70 years old and, according to his business card, a certified building damage expert. He also does mold assessments and quality control during construction. He seems to be a "never change a running system" type. I trust his assessment of the building’s condition, but on some topics he seemed less knowledgeable (for example, he said that the efficiency of a condensing boiler and return temperature/temperature level have nothing to do with each other. Also, he claimed there is no legal insulation requirement).

  • He measured wall moisture in almost every room. Considering the house has been unoccupied and unventilated for two years, the values are good. Of course, there was more moisture in the workshop. He would fix the leak as follows: dig around the corner of the house where the damage is, about 2m (6.5 ft) in radius down to the basement floor level. Disconnect and pull back the electrical cable, drill a new hole, and seal it properly. He estimates the cost at around 5,000 EUR.
  • Surprisingly, he would also install small radiators in the basement rooms to maintain basic heating and thus prevent mold. He said the heat isn’t lost but rises, though to me adding radiators in the basement seemed odd.
  • Regarding the heating system, he recommends replacing the oil boiler with a gas condensing boiler, which would bring significant savings. I find that questionable, especially if the system runs at 70/50°C and nobody wonders why it doesn’t condense.
  • For the exterior walls (minor plaster cracks mainly on the south side), he would simply apply a second layer of plaster to improve appearance, but would not add insulation. If I understand the local energy regulations correctly, this is permissible without mandatory insulation. Still, I have reservations about just plastering over old plaster and hoping it will hold. Is this common practice?
  • As for the roof, he would also leave it as is. However, in my opinion, the energy regulations clearly require insulation of either the top floor ceiling or the roof if the minimum standards of DIN 4108-2 (2013) are not met. The old insulation in the roof likely will not comply.
  • When replacing windows, he would not recommend the most airtight options but double glazing with a U-value between 1.3 and 1.5.
  • He suggested completely renewing the electrical system and estimated costs of at least 20,000 EUR for this. Heating and water pipes would remain. We strongly doubt this, as we don’t feel comfortable keeping 60-year-old pipes, even if they could last another 20 years. Opening walls and floors in a fully occupied home later would be a nightmare.

In summary, he recommends significantly less renovation than we had planned. He said this could save about 100,000 EUR. Our goal and desire is to prepare a home that does not require ongoing renovation every five years because improvements need to be made bit by bit. However, we do not want a fully insulated, deep-renovated house at any cost either. I understand that he prefers to retain a functioning, mold-free building and only insulate further if absolutely necessary. On the other hand, energy costs over the next 50 years cannot be ignored.

I am interested in your opinions on the points described. I can provide more detailed information if needed. I understand that it is difficult to assess everything from a distance, especially since insulation is a controversial topic. Since I have little experience in this area, I find it hard to properly evaluate his statements.

At the moment, I plan to consult a second expert (Are there secret tips on where to find reliable ones?) and get a second opinion on site.

Maybe someone has read this whole post, has experience with such projects, and/or completely different ideas or objections that I haven’t considered yet.
I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for any feedback.

schwalbe
schwalbe29 Jun 2021 08:45
RomeoZwo schrieb:

Converting it into two separate living units is quite a hassle, isn’t it?
Otherwise, just turn room 3 into a bathroom, and it’s still a nice, modern layout even today.

If the living units have to be separated so strictly, it really is a hassle. However, we know from acquaintances that the division often exists only on paper and the actual implementation follows a different approach. We also really like the layout and don’t want to sacrifice it just for the sake of subsidies. On the other hand, these are grants that you can’t simply let go. Room 3 is already the bathroom and will remain so.
11ant schrieb:

Second bathrooms were often added later, and partitions between kitchens and pantries were frequently removed. The term “head” for stone means the same as for wood: the narrow side. Houses from this period often had walls between WC and bathroom made of bricks set vertically (5 or 7 cm (2 or 3 inches) thick) or lath and plaster walls. A concrete ceiling above the ground floor would be unusual for this time and house size, but I could be wrong and the drawing might be correct. I concluded this from the wall between the master bedroom and room 2, which appears to be masonry. Such a wall would not be supported by the beam ceiling. It’s probably resting on a steel beam spanning between the load-bearing interior wall and the masonry section next to the terrace door.

Thanks for the clarification.
L.o.n.a schrieb:

By the way, I wonder—due to recent events 😉—how you managed to get the project financed?
Because it makes a difference whether you ask the bank for an additional 150K or 300K for the renovation when you don’t even fully know yet how you want to renovate, or what the house requires in terms of effort…
Going all in?

Hi L.o.n.a, congratulations on securing the reservation. That’s a good feeling when you’ve taken the first step. Did you have a bidding competition? Fortunately, we were the first (financially reliable) viewers, and the group of heirs wasn’t aiming to get the highest possible price.
All the banks we spoke to required a detailed report from a KfW-certified consultant before financing a renovation. Since we couldn’t provide that before the notary appointment, we initially financed just the purchase and will handle the renovation as a separate step.
Good luck with your project!

In the meantime, we have received the report from the second surveyor. With insulation for the roof, facade, and basement ceiling, new windows and doors, and an air-to-water heat pump, the building reaches KfW85 standard. However, this still assumes the existing radiators and does not take photovoltaic systems into account.
M
Myrna_Loy
29 Jun 2021 09:16
schwalbe schrieb:

If the housing unit has to be separated so strictly, it really becomes a hassle. However, we know from acquaintances that the separation often exists only on paper plans, and the actual construction is done differently. We also really like the floor plan and don’t want to give it up just to qualify for subsidies. On the other hand, these are grants you don’t just want to leave on the table. Room 3 is already the bathroom and will remain so.

That would be considered subsidy fraud. Among home builders, it’s often treated lightly—as if it’s like sampling a cube of cheese at the deli, but instead taking a handful because you’re hungry—but in reality, it’s outright fraud. Potentially in the five-digit range.
N
nordanney
29 Jun 2021 09:50
schwalbe schrieb:

If the residential unit has to be separated so strictly, it’s really a hassle. We know from acquaintances, however, that the separation often only exists on the plans, and the actual implementation is handled differently. We really like the floor plan and don’t want to sacrifice it just for the sake of funding. On the other hand, these are grants you don’t want to just pass up. Room 3 is already the bathroom and will remain so.

So you want to cheat then. Just admit it. But you do realize that the KfW randomly a) checks all invoices for plausibility regarding the measures and b) also inspects the property to look at the work done?
schwalbe schrieb:

With roof/wall/basement ceiling insulation, new windows/doors, and an air-to-water heat pump, it reaches KfW85. However, it still assumes the existing radiators and does not take photovoltaics into account.

Photovoltaics don’t play a major role. But you should seriously consider underfloor heating.
schwalbe29 Jun 2021 10:12
I have no intention of cheating; I was only describing how it was implemented in other projects. If construction differs from what was approved, that is fraud. If the necessary conditions (separate access and cooking/washing facilities in both resulting dwelling units) are met, it is not fraud. We also know that spot checks are conducted.
We now have to decide whether we want to alter the floor plan and receive a large amount of money as a gift or not.
Breathing in a handful of cheese at the deli counter is rude, but not fraud for now. 😉
nordanney schrieb:

But you should seriously consider underfloor heating.

Underfloor heating is currently planned. The energy consultant was aware of this as well. I also wonder why it was not taken into account.
C
Christian_p
29 Jun 2021 13:56
Hello Schwalbe,
we are currently planning the renovation of a similar house from a comparable construction period, but with an extension. Since the roof needs to be replaced and we are also planning facade insulation for various reasons, our energy consultant is currently assuming KfW 55 standards. Precise details on insulation thickness and so on are not yet finalized, but he has apparently handled this several times before.

We have planned the following fixed elements, similar to you:
- Roof insulation (external and between rafters)
- Heat pump with photovoltaic system (potentially achieving KfW 55 EE)
- Underfloor heating in the extension and upper floor (previously unrenovated)
- Facade insulation
- Basement ceiling insulation
- Water pipes
- Sewage pipes
- Electrical wiring

However, we will be creating two separate residential units, though it might be possible to plan for three. Two of these units would initially be combined and only separated at a later stage. I am not yet entirely sure if this is actually permitted.

I hope to soon receive a breakdown of the necessary work for KfW 85 / 70 / 55 standards to better assess the additional effort involved.

Best regards
Christian
N
nordanney
29 Jun 2021 14:05
Christian_p schrieb:

Two of them would initially be combined and only separated in the future. I am not entirely sure yet if that is actually allowed.

So, you are basically converting to a duplex. Therefore, only funding for two residential units is possible.

You also cannot claim that you are building a spacious single-family house of 250sqm (2,690 sq ft) and request funding for three units because you might possibly convert it into three apartments at some unknown time in the future.

Only what is actually done is eligible for funding. “Daydreams” are not. It is similar to financing where salary increases for the next 10 years are already assumed in order to qualify for the loan.