3 ms·
Nope, 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
by thiago_fm 2y ago
Nope, 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).