|
|
|
|
|
by siemprenocasa
2128 days ago
|
|
This reminds me of what Japan does (or in some cases around the Bay Area). People buy plots not for the house, but for the land. Then they built a new house/building in place of the old one - usually for better efficiency, amenities, and longevity. I would argue it's a good thing because it reduces sprawl and uses present land more efficiently. It's better than bulldozing hectares of land to build new developments in these isolated pockets. Generally, buyers would rather have something new where they don't have to worry about the repairs/maintenance/annoyance that comes from owning older houses, where it ends up being a money pit for future value (not including historical/charming old homes). It's like choosing: would you rather drive a 1990 or 2018 Toyota sedan? IDK, maybe this is an opportunity for a "home rebuilding" tax credit incentive or some kind of higher tax on developing new land instead of current land? As someone who moved to the US, I think one realization why this has not really taken effect is that there is just so much land, there is seemingly always more to build on. Thinking about smaller, denser nations, that is just not a feasible strategy. |
|