4 ms·

Tons of reasons for the price difference: * Land was less scarce. * Different amenities - doubt you saw many granite countertops or stainless steel appliances

Tons of reasons for the price difference: * Land was less scarce. * Different amenities - doubt you saw many granite countertops or stainless steel appliances in the 1910s * Sparse (or no) plumbing/electricity * Fewer building codes/regulations

buckbova 13y ago
* no insurance Now every single developer, contractor, sub-contractor, general contractor, professional engineer, material supplier, home owner, renter, insurance agency .... must have insurance.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
> Land was less scarce. True, but this is also Denver. It depends on the location. > Different amenities - doubt you saw many granite countertops or stainless steel appliances in the 1910s Pretty sure your fancy 1910 house has been renovated more than a few times. Homes actually require maintenance and upgrades to be livable. > Sparse (or no) plumbing/electricity In 1910 I'm sure they had something. But see the previous point. > Fewer building codes/regulations Again, the home should have been upgraded unless the codes/regulations were superfluous; grandfather clauses only take one so far. As an investment, a 3X appreciation over 100 years sans property taxes is still a quite crappy return, but at least you (and your progeny) get to live in it.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Of course it's been renovated, but the GP was talking about the original purchase price.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    After 100 years of renovation and property taxes, how much of the original house's purchase value is even left? I guess an argument can be made that all of the latter costs are incremental and therefore easier to afford.
    - Domenic_S 13y ago
      A fine point, but not really relevant as the discussion was about the cost of acquisition.
      - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        I thought that that the original discussion was about how the house increased in value, not about costs of acquisitions. My mistake!

buckbova 13y ago

* no insurance Now every single developer, contractor, sub-contractor, general contractor, professional engineer, material supplier, home owner, renter, insurance agency .... must have insurance.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

> Land was less scarce. True, but this is also Denver. It depends on the location. > Different amenities - doubt you saw many granite countertops or stainless steel appliances in the 1910s Pretty sure your fancy 1910 house has been renovated more than a few times. Homes actually require maintenance and upgrades to be livable. > Sparse (or no) plumbing/electricity In 1910 I'm sure they had something. But see the previous point. > Fewer building codes/regulations Again, the home should have been upgraded unless the codes/regulations were superfluous; grandfather clauses only take one so far. As an investment, a 3X appreciation over 100 years sans property taxes is still a quite crappy return, but at least you (and your progeny) get to live in it.

Domenic_S 13y ago
Of course it's been renovated, but the GP was talking about the original purchase price.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  After 100 years of renovation and property taxes, how much of the original house's purchase value is even left? I guess an argument can be made that all of the latter costs are incremental and therefore easier to afford.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    A fine point, but not really relevant as the discussion was about the cost of acquisition.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      I thought that that the original discussion was about how the house increased in value, not about costs of acquisitions. My mistake!