Re:Portland’s Small-House Movement Is Catching On
by ghaff on Monday October 03, 2016 @11:41AM
(#12628315)
>In any place worth living the real value is in the land, not the house.
That's a pretty sweeping generalization. I know that, for some people, life isn't worth living outside the core of a few hip cities, but they're really not the norm.
In general, at least outside of cities, the value of any structures tracks tends to track to the value of the land--assuming the land isn't very large (10s of acres and up). I'd guess that equal values for land setup for utilities and the structure itself is a fairly typical rule of thumb in a lot of places. (The median price for a home is about $200K. The construction cost for a new house is going to be a pretty significant chunk of that.)
Masonry construction is problematic in earthquake zones. It can work with enough steel reinforcement, but then the construction costs become too high.
In any place worth living the real value is in the land, not the house. Build houses so that they can be easily deconstructed and the materials recycled instead going to landfills.