People's homes were much less luxurious, as their lifestyle. A lot of the things we take for granted the people at the time they only dreamed about.
Why would this being an 'investment' interfere with its pricing anymore than if everyone had lived in these homes as shelter? You don't magically have the privilege of selling 'investments' for more than you bought it. Not trying to be facetious... just genuinely curious? If people are willing to pay that price, then that is the price it would have been, whether or not it was bought for investment or living, right?
Sure it seems bad for you, but in actual fact, the place you are living has gone up in value. That's unambiguously a good thing.
Housing is considered a good investment because it consistently has gone up in cost faster than the rest of the economy.
As this continues housing becomes more expensive relative to median purchasing power.
Unless housing becomes a bad investment, it will by definition continue to be something that a smaller percentage of people can afford over time.
We would be better off if housing became a consumption good/commodity that by default stayed roughly the same price in real dollars forever, since that's the only way housing can stay accessible to average people indefinitely.
The apartment is increasing in value.
I understand the economics of how this can happen, but I'm not becoming any more optimistic while trying to reconcile these two facts.
Afaik, new constructions have to comply with more regulation (noise insulation, materials, environment protection etc) than before, which makes them more expensive. At least where I live.