Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Houses do not increase in value. Land property does (usually). Houses decrease.


> Houses do not increase in value.

They do, by a lot, if they're in desirable cities. Probably what's really increasing in value is the grandfathered permission to have built a house, but there's no way to separate that from the house.


Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.


> Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.

That really depends on the market. There are areas near me where property prices have increased so rapidly they outpace any losses from depreciation. Not necessarily a good thing of course as it does lead to very expensive houses and difficulty with people trying to buy their first house.


Maybe houses made out of paper that you have in the US would, since just after 100 years they have to be demolished and built again. But houses made of concrete, that we have in Europe, just increase in value.

Yes, maybe you have to renovate the interiors, such as new floors, new electrical/hydraulic, new heating system, etc., but that is usually a small expense in contrast with the price of building an house from scratch.


Old brick house is just another old house. Moisture problems in the foundation area, no heat insulation on the roof and walls. Probably wooden beams in the floor. Everything is old and outdated decades ago. I am certified electrician in Germany as a hobby and work in such properties very often.

Meanwhile new house is cool in summer and warm in winter. It’s silent with spacious rooms. It is also not affordable for most people too. Old house is a middle ground when one doesn’t have enough money. There is no way to upgrade in sane way old house to modern standards.


No, because the value of permission to build a house on the lot can be a lot more than the cost of renovating it (even when that renovation cost is higher than the cost of building a new house on that lot). If you don't have another way to get that kind of permission (e.g. maybe it's illegal for you to contribute to the unaffiliated PAC supporting the mayor's reelection campaign because you're a noncitizen) it can be virtually priceless.


The best kind of correct.


They do if your municipality is run by idiots who levy ever increasing regulatory burden on new construction.

Every new edition of the IBC makes my hovel worth more relatively because the cost to create an alternate just keeps on going up.


Depends. My (UK) house is 125 years old. Its depreciating days are well behind it.


How can a house stop depreciating if every part of it and everything in it becomes older as time passes?

The only thing stopping depreciation is regular maintenance which costs money.


A fancy old house is more fancy than a new fancy house.


If it is maintained.


In that basic sense, yeah, OK.


You don't sell the house without land anyway. What matters is that the set of land+house increases in value.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: