4 ms·
> your house that costed maximum 300K to build When you buy real estate you're mostly paying for the value of the land. Sometimes I'd even say the land might b
by WWLink 2y ago
> your house that costed maximum 300K to build
When you buy real estate you're mostly paying for the value of the land. Sometimes I'd even say the land might be worth more if there wasn't already a house on it lol.
- tossandthrow 2y agoThis really depends. Currently in SF, yes. But the value of the land is also not given.
- thiago_fm 2y agoNope, in most of the US (so, not NY/SF and big centers), which has the most land, land is really cheap and the costs to build the house is the highest. Also in a lot of places in the world is like this.
- WWLink 2y agoIn most of the US, a house costs more than 300k. The average price atm is 513,000 according to https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS I'll suggest neither of us are actually right anyway. A raw piece of land that was never setup for building a house on would definitely be worth less than a piece of land that was ready for a house. Especially if it had city water/sewage, power lines, fiber for internet, etc. Add in school districts and whatever else, and again the land becomes more valuable. So having a piece of land with a house on it might be worth more than an empty piece of land - but that comes back to location! A piece of land in the middle of a developed city would be worth more than a random piece of land in rural Ohio. Anyway, I still think it tracks. In my town an empty house-sized plot of land with utilities would probably cost similar to a house (maybe minus that $300k cost to build a house).