Doesn't the value of a house have less to do with how much it costs to build, but how much the land it sits on costs?
My understanding is that if you have a growing population whom all wish to live in a few major cities then simple supply and demand means house prices in cities will raise unless more supply is added to the equation. But then in a city like London or New York the only place you can build is up (or down in the case of London) so this isn't always feasible.
House prices in rural areas are fairly affordable.
My understanding is that if you have a growing population whom all wish to live in a few major cities then simple supply and demand means house prices in cities will raise unless more supply is added to the equation. But then in a city like London or New York the only place you can build is up (or down in the case of London) so this isn't always feasible.
House prices in rural areas are fairly affordable.