> Why don't we see $150k new builds with this level of fractal detail and material quality then? Or at $500k?

I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size. People with $500k to spend on a house don't want a 1250 foot 1 bathroom house in an undesirable neighborhood, no matter how much "fractal detail" it may have, but if they did they could build one.

Like...it's not rocket science. The materials are all things which are still being made, and they're not appreciably more expensive now than in 1921. It's not some lost secret of the ancients. It's just not something people do, because it's a moderately expensive way to get a fairly crappy house unless you have pretty unique tastes.

But you totally can do it. That's why places like this exist: https://www.thehousedesigners.com

The house above is 1600-1700 square feet, small by modern standards, and needs two more bathrooms (which are expensive rooms). I think you could safely double the materials cost to get something close to what a modern family would want, larger, with wiring, air, etc: $94k

Labor is typically about the cost of the materials. So double the cost again. $188k

A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does. Obviously this varies wildly, but let's use it for an example, because it gets us to a nice round number of 250k.

I just don't see new builds in that price range anywhere even approaching the quality and aesthetics of this house. That's not to say that in rust-belt towns you can't buy old homes of a similar era for around that cost (or much less, if the economy has tanked, e.g. detroit) but new builds in that price range are gonna be stucco sh*t boxes.

When I say "fractal detail" I mean that the house has visual interest at different scales: the eaves are interesting up close, at five feet, at fifty feet, etc. It's detailing (often disparaged, and sometimes fairly, as ornament) that requires a level of care and craftsmanship to execute far out of proportion to, say, slapping up a long stucco wall with some flashing.

I suppose I'm not going to convince anyone of much, but I think that many of the excuses for the atrociousness of modern buildings are intellectually lazy.

> A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does.

You obviously don't live in California.

;-)

Or anywhere I can name. Where does this apply?

Looking at local listings about 30 minutes away from Charlotte NC, I see a .40 acre lot for sale in a reasonable neighborhood for $50,000. homes on the same street are selling for between $200,000 to $275,000.

That's not something I can easily imagine. A building cost that low just isn't possible in New Zealand as far as I can tell.

>I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size.

Land is the only one of those that has really skyrocketed in price. That was driven by politics.

What do you think homes in trailer parks are? They are the successors to this house: cheap prefab homes that you put in a place where you rent land.

A quick Google search for double-wide housing brings up this guy for $43k: http://www.montysheavybuilthomes.com/index.php?pageID=16284_...

You can't get those materials at that price, if at all.