4 ms·

Land was a lot more plentiful in 1950, especially near urban centers. The population has also increased drastically. Inflation alone is not enough to do a reaso

by ebbv 10y ago

Land was a lot more plentiful in 1950, especially near urban centers. The population has also increased drastically. Inflation alone is not enough to do a reasonable extrapolation of what houses should cost today.

Retric 10y ago
The US still has a lot of farm land in every state in the continental US under 5k per half acre. While it's true the population has flocked to a tiny fraction of city's that's more an issue poor planning than any fundamental issue. https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/land0815.pdf https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/land0815.pdf
WillPostForFood 10y ago
Houses are also bigger now, safer due to many construction regulations, more energy efficient (at least per sq/ft), all of which also add to the cost.
- Retric 10y ago
  Bigger is largely a result of poor incentives. Insulation is really cheap with the median running less than 1% of new home sale prices. US home prices in the US have an interesting history with several incentices to make homes more affordable resulting in higher home prices. 120 years ago most non farm houses where bought with cash, resulting in cheap and affordable housing being the norm. PS: Like with cars the trend is for people with above average incomes buying new homes which means the used market tends to have older upsale housing instead of affordable new housing.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    Blowing an attic with insulation is cheap (and good value), but throw in double pane windows, insulated hot water pipes, roofs equipped for solar panels, energy star appliances, automatic lighting controls and it adds up. Regarding perverse incentives - the home mortgage deduction is one of the worst. Take money from renters to subsidize homeowners, and drive up housing prices in the process.
    - steveax 10y ago
      Agreed, it's time to start phasing out and/or putting caps on the mortgage interest deduction.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Home solar panels are a solid investment, but not what's driving up median home prices. Oddly enough, home solar hot water heaters are a better investment than a lot of the more expensive insulation methods. Double pain windows for example are slightly better than 50's style storm windows which also had 2 set's of glass, but not by a huge amount. At least compared to having 80% of home heating needs in Maine covered for under 10k. Some of this cost is required by poorly written efficiency requirements. But a 50's style house updated to be highly efficient might cost 120k and sit on 10k of land, but that's a long way from 200+k.
- bluthru 10y ago
  >Houses are also bigger now The cost of square footage is low compared to its price. Concrete is expensive per SF but that's about it. In the past it took a lot of labor to put up lathe and plaster walls and real hardwood floors, but today it's mostly screwing up drywall and rolling out carpet. >safer due to many construction regulations Not a lot has changed in this regard for single-family homes. Roofs are tied down, better protection against sheering forces, and materials that resist fire, and none of these add much to the cost. >more energy efficient (at least per sq/ft) Windows can get expensive, but overall insulation doesn't contribute much to the high cost of housing.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    Maybe my perspective is California centric, but the safety regulations have affected almost every aspect of home building, from materials, to construction, to monitoring. So for example, mandatory safety glass, mandatory plywood sheathing, smoke detectors, electrical wiring, foundations. It is all those incremental costs multiplied by the increase in average size (2 - 2.5x) and it ends up substantially affecting construction costs.
    - bluthru 10y ago
      Yeah the case could be made for California. Is it true that residential houses now require sprinklers too?

by ebbv 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

The US still has a lot of farm land in every state in the continental US under 5k per half acre. While it's true the population has flocked to a tiny fraction of city's that's more an issue poor planning than any fundamental issue. https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/land0815.pdf https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/land0815.pdf

WillPostForFood 10y ago

Houses are also bigger now, safer due to many construction regulations, more energy efficient (at least per sq/ft), all of which also add to the cost.

Retric 10y ago
Bigger is largely a result of poor incentives. Insulation is really cheap with the median running less than 1% of new home sale prices. US home prices in the US have an interesting history with several incentices to make homes more affordable resulting in higher home prices. 120 years ago most non farm houses where bought with cash, resulting in cheap and affordable housing being the norm. PS: Like with cars the trend is for people with above average incomes buying new homes which means the used market tends to have older upsale housing instead of affordable new housing.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Blowing an attic with insulation is cheap (and good value), but throw in double pane windows, insulated hot water pipes, roofs equipped for solar panels, energy star appliances, automatic lighting controls and it adds up. Regarding perverse incentives - the home mortgage deduction is one of the worst. Take money from renters to subsidize homeowners, and drive up housing prices in the process.
  - steveax 10y ago
    Agreed, it's time to start phasing out and/or putting caps on the mortgage interest deduction.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Home solar panels are a solid investment, but not what's driving up median home prices. Oddly enough, home solar hot water heaters are a better investment than a lot of the more expensive insulation methods. Double pain windows for example are slightly better than 50's style storm windows which also had 2 set's of glass, but not by a huge amount. At least compared to having 80% of home heating needs in Maine covered for under 10k. Some of this cost is required by poorly written efficiency requirements. But a 50's style house updated to be highly efficient might cost 120k and sit on 10k of land, but that's a long way from 200+k.
bluthru 10y ago
>Houses are also bigger now The cost of square footage is low compared to its price. Concrete is expensive per SF but that's about it. In the past it took a lot of labor to put up lathe and plaster walls and real hardwood floors, but today it's mostly screwing up drywall and rolling out carpet. >safer due to many construction regulations Not a lot has changed in this regard for single-family homes. Roofs are tied down, better protection against sheering forces, and materials that resist fire, and none of these add much to the cost. >more energy efficient (at least per sq/ft) Windows can get expensive, but overall insulation doesn't contribute much to the high cost of housing.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Maybe my perspective is California centric, but the safety regulations have affected almost every aspect of home building, from materials, to construction, to monitoring. So for example, mandatory safety glass, mandatory plywood sheathing, smoke detectors, electrical wiring, foundations. It is all those incremental costs multiplied by the increase in average size (2 - 2.5x) and it ends up substantially affecting construction costs.
  - bluthru 10y ago
    Yeah the case could be made for California. Is it true that residential houses now require sprinklers too?