3 ms·
It is. Smaller square foot houses tend to go for more per sq ft. That said, my house is 1700 sq ft built mid 50s. We looked at many anywhere from 1500-3000k
by frumper 4y ago
It is. Smaller square foot houses tend to go for more per sq ft. That said, my house is 1700 sq ft built mid 50s. We looked at many anywhere from 1500-3000k built in the 50s and 60s. But a 1700sq ft house built in the 50s doesn’t get discounted over a 1700sq ft home built in the 2000s despite old plumping, electrical and insulation. Homes in disrepair obviously are cheaper, but that’s just as true for 20 year old homes as 70.
- rsj_hn 4y agoSo the post pointed out that home sale prices were increasing in time in terms of the performance of the asset class, and I pointed out that homes were growing in size, and you seem to have fixated on the age of the house rather than the fact that in 1950, the average home was almost 1/3 the size of the average home of 2022, and therefore you would expect it to be much less in price just on that basis alone. I am not sure why there is a cognitive barrier in understanding this. When you buy a home, the performance of that asset will not benefit from comps of much bigger homes that are sold in the future. Is this really confusing? Why am I hitting a wall here? You need to look at price per square foot data if you are going to be doing comps across time, because houses are always getting bigger, but the house you buy is not going to get bigger.
- frumper 4y agoYou're hitting a wall because you changed your tune from "plumbing/electrical/insulation" to square foot size, and you're being rude. I don't think anyone disagrees that overall prices have gone up in homes that are larger. Where did I say a 950sq ft home goes for the same as a 3000 sq foot one?