> A sizable percentage of people don't want to live in condos. And they aren't necessarily small, either.
Most condos are small. If a sizeable proportion of people don't want to live in condos, that would make them cheaper. The fact that they're appreciating similarly that is further evidence that the premium for size is not the driver of what's happening.
> That's an extreme understatement. A glitzy refrigerator might only had $500 but marble counters might add $20,000 or more. Same with flooring. The price difference on a house full of stick on vinyl and real hard wood might be an additional $20,000. Then you get to other cosmetics such as crown moldings, jacuzzi tubs, walk in showers, vaulted ceilings, heated towel racks, and more.
Most properties don't have jacuzzi tubs or vaulted ceilings. You're not wrong, but they're not relevant to the discussion of what's happening to the median home buyer.
It's nonsensical to think that the price of housing has risen primarily because of quality increases because many, many houses have seen large appreciation with no changes.
> It's nonsensical to think that the price of housing has risen primarily because of quality increases because many, many houses have seen large appreciation with no changes.
So it should be absolutely no problem for you to take me up on my offer. Locate a home, built in the 50s or 60s, without any additions adding square feet. Cheap counters, cheap flooring, and cheap fixtures. If what you say is true this should be relatively simple.
How much is it, and how much more or less expensive is it than newer construction in the area. If homes are just rapidly appreciating while they sit there unimproved, this should be a trivial exercise.
My parents bought a 1400 sqft, 1950s-built home in 1993 for $350k. It still has all old appliances such as a 1950s oven that looks like this [1], old gas heating vents, no central cooling, no pool. No additions. The fixtures and flooring aren't cheap, but they're not luxurious, and are over 60/70 years old at this point - only real maintenance they've done is re-shingling the roof and repaving the driveway every decade or so.
The house is now worth $2.1M (+500% gain). Obviously if they sold a new buyer would tear the whole thing down and build some huge modern home on the land (which is the actual valuable portion of the asset) as has been happening in their neighborhood.
You are placing way too much importance on the relatively small value of fixtures and "nice" amenities vs. the global glut of capital chasing appreciating assets (made much easier through online platforms) such as land in desirable areas.
Most condos are small. If a sizeable proportion of people don't want to live in condos, that would make them cheaper. The fact that they're appreciating similarly that is further evidence that the premium for size is not the driver of what's happening.
> That's an extreme understatement. A glitzy refrigerator might only had $500 but marble counters might add $20,000 or more. Same with flooring. The price difference on a house full of stick on vinyl and real hard wood might be an additional $20,000. Then you get to other cosmetics such as crown moldings, jacuzzi tubs, walk in showers, vaulted ceilings, heated towel racks, and more.
Most properties don't have jacuzzi tubs or vaulted ceilings. You're not wrong, but they're not relevant to the discussion of what's happening to the median home buyer.
It's nonsensical to think that the price of housing has risen primarily because of quality increases because many, many houses have seen large appreciation with no changes.