The one thing they're not making any more of in this world is land.

Huge portions of the US remain undeveloped or under-developed. Land isn't really in as short of supply as some would have you believe.

    $3.2M isn't much money for a very large number of people in this world.

$3.2 is just the purchase price. The article says the buyer would be looking at another $25-million to demolish the structures that can't be salvaged. Then you have upkeep and taxes. I'm sure the actual total monetary commitment is still within reach for many, but it's not nearly as low as $3.2.

Agreed. But really $25 million isn't that much for many people either. There's a handful of single-family houses in my town that sell for that much.

Land can potentially be in short supply in areas people want to be located, especially land locked cities.

Right, but once you start talking specific locations, you get back to the fact that land isn't really in short supply in Detroit these days.

Apparently there's a plan to sell lots to Detroit residents for $100 each. Most in the 1/10th of an acre size. But Detroit also seems to have very restrictive building codes that would prevent most of what's there now from being built today. At some point they're probably going to want to reconsider that if they want to make real progress.

Still, if I lived in Detroit I would likely buy a few lots because why not? For that price I might use em for art projects or something.

Yup. There are plenty of people who can sit on an illiquid 3.2M investment for an indefinite period of time. Barring a dirty bomb, nuclear war or government collapse, I can't see 6000 lots in Detroit for $3.2M not being worth 10x that in 30 years.

For anyone wondering like I did, that would be 7.75% annual return, compounded once a year.

Except that once you own those properties, you have to pay taxes and perform basic upkeep. Even just tearing down the derelict properties would each up most of the 10x gain.

Absolutely. I was just working out the numbers to see that a 10X gain sounds great, but if it takes 30 years it's not blockbuster per year. The exponential function again.

that's not really true. half of san francisco and manhattan didn't exist 100 years ago. they're making more land, but only if there's a return on the investment.