3 ms·
I think my hangup is that there's a conflation between a property's value (which, right now, is some appraisal of a parcel given nearby comparable parcels by so
by nrr 3y ago
I think my hangup is that there's a conflation between a property's value (which, right now, is some appraisal of a parcel given nearby comparable parcels by some metric) and a home's acquisition price. In the SFH case, they might be inexorably linked, but for justifying more dense options, it's the ever increasing value of land that makes the case to densify. It's mostly a matter of how densely you can continue rebuilding in order to hit a price target at that point. This is roughly the Japanese model.
- bluGill 3y agoOnly partially. Building a 100 story high rise is only reasonable if property values are very high - there is presumably high demand for that area and thus density, and the high values mean you have to spread the cost across a lot of people to make it affordable for anyone. Even in very low demand small towns though there is demand for some density - a 3 story apartment will often exist in those towns and have no problem renting to people who want/need to live in the small town but don't want a single family for whatever reason. These smaller low rise buildings are the cheapest housing possible - they are small enough that they don't need expensive elevators and the like, though of course they don't make sense in high property value areas. Which is to say that even on the low end of property value density can be justified to some extent.