ᐅ To what extent do you take aging in place into account when building a home?
Created on: 12 Aug 2016 21:10
M
Mizit
Preliminary remark: we are currently going through a phase where we seriously question all our previous plans. 🙂 I hope this phase is normal.
At the moment, I am concerned about to what extent one should consider living arrangements for old age when planning the floor plan. With the layouts we have favored so far, living in old age with the perhaps typical difficulties would not be easy.
We are currently planning a guest bathroom with a shower on the ground floor, but it will be somewhere between 3.5–5 square meters (38–54 square feet), and a large, barrier-free shower would probably not be possible there, nor would there be enough space to enter the bathroom with a walker, for example. Generally, I have always considered having a bedroom on the ground floor as a practical option for later, but it seems to me that especially these "catalog floor plans" for series-built houses do not provide for a sufficiently large bedroom on the ground floor, nor a sufficiently large bathroom.
It’s not that we only just became aware that we might hopefully live to be 90 and perhaps won’t be able to manage stairs anymore. We simply haven’t prioritized the question of living in the house in old age. Basically, we still see a lot of value in the idea that we might give the single-family home to one of our children in 30 years or rent it out in order to move back to the city ourselves, and so on.
But maybe in 20 years we will see things very differently. Maybe we will be very attached to this place, this house, and perhaps we cannot imagine selling the family home of our children, and so on.
In that case, it wouldn’t be unwise to plan so that it would be possible to live entirely on the ground floor at some point, possibly separate the upper floors as a separate apartment and rent them out. But then it might be necessary to plan some things differently now...
How important has this aspect been for you?
At the moment, I am concerned about to what extent one should consider living arrangements for old age when planning the floor plan. With the layouts we have favored so far, living in old age with the perhaps typical difficulties would not be easy.
We are currently planning a guest bathroom with a shower on the ground floor, but it will be somewhere between 3.5–5 square meters (38–54 square feet), and a large, barrier-free shower would probably not be possible there, nor would there be enough space to enter the bathroom with a walker, for example. Generally, I have always considered having a bedroom on the ground floor as a practical option for later, but it seems to me that especially these "catalog floor plans" for series-built houses do not provide for a sufficiently large bedroom on the ground floor, nor a sufficiently large bathroom.
It’s not that we only just became aware that we might hopefully live to be 90 and perhaps won’t be able to manage stairs anymore. We simply haven’t prioritized the question of living in the house in old age. Basically, we still see a lot of value in the idea that we might give the single-family home to one of our children in 30 years or rent it out in order to move back to the city ourselves, and so on.
But maybe in 20 years we will see things very differently. Maybe we will be very attached to this place, this house, and perhaps we cannot imagine selling the family home of our children, and so on.
In that case, it wouldn’t be unwise to plan so that it would be possible to live entirely on the ground floor at some point, possibly separate the upper floors as a separate apartment and rent them out. But then it might be necessary to plan some things differently now...
How important has this aspect been for you?
U
Username_wahl17 Aug 2016 18:30It doesn’t cost much to make the doors on the ground floor a bit wider (which also looks better) or to include a walk-in shower in the slightly larger guest bathroom (which can also be used by guests)...
Alex85 schrieb:
This is like the discussion about whether owning a home is financially worthwhile or not. It just leads nowhere.Why so negative? Even if you want to assume that homeowners have some tunnel vision during the decision and building phase, they’re not going to be out of their mind for 100 years just because they build or buy a house.
And when you look at how many users here ask questions about value, financing, etc., the argument is hard to understand as well. Besides, you yourself are a counterexample to your theory, since you have already recognized the changed needs:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/inwiefern-beruecksichtigt-ihr-beim-bauen-wohnen-im-alter.16777/page-3#post-149016
If you/your group recognize this, then almost every other builder does too, right? 😉
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
Dirk Grafe schrieb:
If you/you all realize that, then pretty much every other builder does too, right? 😉This thread actually shows the opposite. 😉
I mean that without judgment.
No one here needs to be "enlightened." Obviously, there are different opinions on this. I have shared mine, you have shared yours—multiple times. That’s why I pointed out that it’s a waste of effort.
Houses are built out of conviction, not based on facts!
Exceptions prove the rule, but that’s the impression I get from this thread and the forum in general.
And I’m okay with that. I have to be, since I’m part of the group that doesn’t see owning a home as the ideal way to secure retirement or build wealth, yet I still want to build one. 😉
Alex85 schrieb:
This thread actually shows the opposite. 😉
I mean this without judgment.
I see it differently—hopefully without sounding like a know-it-all—because this development is relatively new and also related to social changes. The baby boomers are retiring from around now until the next 20 years. In another 20 years, that generation will have mostly retired, but due to improved living conditions, the number of people over 60 will stabilize and remain steady for approximately another 30 years.
The following generations are significantly smaller, which means there will either be an oversupply of real estate or, as is already happening, there will be a need to consider repurposing existing building areas. Some municipalities, for example, no longer receive approval for new land for residential developments because the regional authorities have shown them that demand is not there or will decrease in the future and/or can be met through repurposing and densification—something that would have been unthinkable 30 to 40 years ago.
In this respect—and as many prospective builders are already realizing—building is no longer just a matter of “building by conviction,” but increasingly a question of “where can I even still find a building plot if I want to build at all?”
Additionally, the expectations for plot size have easily decreased to half of what was considered standard 30 to 40 years ago, which in turn makes inner-city densification and repurposing attractive.
So—from this (hopefully as neutral as possible) description—I find it very interesting to observe how this will continue to develop, both nationwide in Germany (where there are actually very few regions with sustained growth forecasts) and locally.
That this is not yet general opinion—so be it. I understand that many still think and act according to the “right” flow until now. However, I also consider it wrong not to inform about these changes for that reason alone.
Best regards,
Dirk Grafe
Dirk Grafe schrieb:
So either there is an oversupply of real estate, or people have to consider (and this is happening) repurposing existing areas. As mentioned, this varies greatly by region. For example, Leipzig and Dresden with their surrounding commuter belts in Saxony are growing very rapidly, while smaller cities like Chemnitz/Zwickau and Görlitz are doing fairly well, and in all other areas, everyone who can is moving away. These two major cities are experiencing a severe housing shortage, even in the surrounding areas. This trend has accelerated significantly in recent years. The cities cannot keep up with housing construction. Single-family home plots are extremely scarce and sell immediately (new development areas). Daycare places are becoming scarce, elementary schools are getting full, and secondary schools are currently being expanded proactively.
Example: Leipzig had around 510,000 inhabitants at the beginning of 2012 and over 570,000 by the first quarter of 2016. That’s an increase of 60,000 people in just a few years.
Example of densification: More difficult than expected. Sure, everyone recalculates how many vacant lots there are in the city, but then you look at these lots: next to railway embankments; under power lines; in the middle of industrial zones; right beside large parking lots with recycling containers; directly next to an elementary school or its playground. We had looked at several individual municipal plots beforehand, and they were all unsuitable.
Edit: There are many studies—Google can certainly help here—that show significantly higher median wealth among homeowners compared to renters. The reasons can be debated, but simply paying off hundreds of thousands in equity is something few renters accumulate in their investment accounts. And as mentioned, if the location is reasonable, a 160-200 sqm (1,720-2,150 sq ft) house with a well-kept garden, terrace, parking space, and in a good area will easily add up to several hundred thousand in value.