Hacker News Reader

Comment by ezl | Hacker News Reader

i found it interesting that depreciation is expected on your property and houses are expected to have no resale value.

Even in North America, houses are considered a depreciating asset. The property on which the house sits is what tends to appreciate, hopefully offsetting the losses on the house (at least from the owner's point of view).

But with negative population growth and virtual no immigration as is the case with Japan, fewer properties are needed to sustain the decreasing number of people. Supply exceeds demand, so prices fall.

How does this work for condos?

The numbers I've seen suggest that condos on average actually appreciate more than houses even in a given location http://re-sanfrancisco.com/10-years-of-san-francisco-condo-v...

But I'm not sure how much you can conclude from that as a condo could still appreciate (i.e. someone would be willing to spend more money for it) even if the underlying physical plant were deteriorating at some rate. It's probably also worth noting that, in a lot of cases in the US, single family homes in particular don't necessarily deteriorate. People do maintenance, redo their kitchens, add decks, etc.

As a condo owner, you also own a representative share of the land the condo is built on (not an actual plot, but an interest in the total value of the land). The condo can depreciate, but if the land appreciates, the overall value of your share can appreciate.

same way i find it interesting that the same piece of property can cost $100k in one place and $1 million else where simply because of location. Man can be a very irrational animal, and once he has rationalized some useless idea into being, he can't shake it off his head.

Location isn't irrational. In fact, it's probably one of the most rational factors in real estate pricing in the US. It's one of the few factors that's driven largely by the market forces of supply and demand.

Locations are "hot" because they're in places with good jobs, good services, good schools (though this one needs an asterisk), access to amenities and culture, etc.

Locations are "cold" to the degree that they're in high-crime, poor-service areas, or in remote areas without job prospects. Nobody wants to live in these areas, so with reduced demand come lower prices.

A 2,000 square-foot home costs $100k in rural Montana and $1M in Southern California because millions of people want to live in SoCal, and relatively few people want to live in rural Montana. Housing prices in Detroit are low because the job market in Detroit has been cratering for decades while crime has been increasing. A home with a seaside view is worth more than a similarly proportioned home abutting a freeway, because people would rather look at the former than the latter. A home in San Francisco is worth a fortune because lots of people with lots of money want to live here, but the inventory (supply) is limited. Etc.

Plenty of factors in real estate pricing are highly irrational. With few exceptions, location isn't one of them. When people pay for location, they're not paying for the house on that location; they're paying for the location itself. That's why comparing X square feet in Y area to X square feet in Z area isn't apples to apples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com