> The incremental value of the > first 1000 sq ft is nowhere > near as much as the next 1000 > sq ft. Agreed, but not for the reasons you think, it

> The incremental value of the > first 1000 sq ft is nowhere > near as much as the next 1000 > sq ft. Agreed, but not for the reasons you think, it's even higher than that, not lower! A 2000 sq ft house you can turn into a duplex is more valuable than a single family home. It's the government that's destroying that potential value by preventing that development. > people might just demand 20% > larger housing, but so what? If that's what they really want, sure, who am I to judge? What I'm pointing out is that you'll see articles and discussions lamenting increased housing costs, while ignoring the massive variable of shifting consumer preference. It would be like complaining about the rising costs of mobile phones, while implicitly insisting that you're only willing to purchase the latest top-of-the-line iPhone. > A major reason for this is > that we effectively prohibited > smaller ones. Yes, that's a factor, so reducing size to 1910 levels is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. But there's a lot of optional consumer preference on top of that.