[bradlys]

> With persistently increasing construction complexity and building code, replacement cost generously outpaces existing building value. At least from a USA perspective, many neighborhoods are stuck with older, dated housing stock that would be aesthetically better off scraped and rebuilt in modern form, but the existing home is too valuable and ground-up new construction too expensive relative to market.

Is this not NIMBY-ism? You either need to build a new house that is very expensive OR you can just buy my little shit-shack that is grandfathered in. It's a bargain in comparison - believe me! Either way, pay me lots of money or increase the value of my property indirectly.

[ethagknight]

Not NIMBY, that’s a separate, complicated issue. I’m just referring to the intrinsic value of an existing structure, replacing like for newer like, in a rational “middle America” market (not california).