I believe that is because when you finance a house you're financing the land+house combination, with the land making up the majority of value in most urban areas - when you finance a mobile home you are only financing the home, which depreciates (unlike the land component) - hence its a higher risk loan and therefore more expensive to finance.
>>with the land making up the majority of value in most urban areas
I would love to see a source where land value makes up the majority of the value in most urban area's
In my case, my home is worth about 2x the land the shits on, and I am for sure in a urban area. Most of my state is the same
Now maybe for a ultra dense urban area's where single family home would/should be replaced with high density building that would be the case but for the common subdivision in suburbia I doubt the land is the majority of the value
even in the source article of this story, the average Home Price was $370,000 with land cost being $86,000
When a half-burned shell in Walnut Creek, CA sells for a million dollars, the value is clearly having buildable land located near a strong labor market.
I can play this game to, it does not prove you assertion, provide a data sours that should the majority of urban locations are land value heavy
Random Property in Philadelphia [1]
Assessed Value 2023: 257300 / land: 51460 - Structures: 205840
Assessed Value 2015: 186800 / land: 90300 - structures: 96500
So in Philly land DROPPED in value, Structures increased
In Austin they appear to claim Structures s have not increased in value at all in 10 years (very odd) and the 100% of the increase in the value of the land
I bet if I dig into local tax laws I will find some justifications for both valuations methods (meaning the local taxing authorities are manipulating the values for maximum tax revenue)
Just think a bit deeper about it. If you can get an equivalent sqft house built to similar cost of materials of a similar age and similar condition, why would that house be 1/3rd the price in one spot? The land and the property tax rate is the difference.
I understand that some area have massively increased land prices
That is not the discussion, the claim I was responding to said that the MAJORITY of urban homes the value of the home is made up by the value of the land, not the home
I can see that in some very select regions of the nation, but through not the midwest that for sure should not be the case, and I am suspect that the MAJORITY of the nation is that way
Thus my asking for a SOURCE for the claim that was made as my experience differs
So far all have a gotten was 2 cherry picked anecdotes to prove the claim with no actual data backing it, as such i will simply assume the statement is false
"Urban" is too broad of a term in the US where 80% of the population is defined as urban. Needless to say, Hattiesburg, MS and New York, NY are both defined as "urban" areas but have very different ratios of land value to structure value.
