Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The land in the Texas Hill Country is highly expensive.
Is it? I hadn't heard that, so I just checked out some random listings on zillow and they were very reasonably priced. Good-sized tracts for 2500-5000 an acre. And there were some beautiful lots priced into the millions, but they were hundreds of acres.
This is undeveloped land they are taking about, not an apartment or house.
I'm talking about blank urban land. In a prosperous, urban city, blank land in highrise districts will often go in the four figures per square foot. In lowrise urban districts it'll often go for at least several hundred per square foot.
If a building is on the property and it's not very large or new, it's often worth less than a blank site.
Is it? I hadn't heard that, so I just checked out some random listings on zillow and they were very reasonably priced. Good-sized tracts for 2500-5000 an acre. And there were some beautiful lots priced into the millions, but they were hundreds of acres.
Yes.Land near Fredericksburg goes for 10-14 thousand an acre.
I'm talking about blank urban land. In a prosperous, urban city, blank land in highrise districts will often go in the four figures per square foot. In lowrise urban districts it'll often go for at least several hundred per square foot.
If a building is on the property and it's not very large or new, it's often worth less than a blank site.
Yeah, part of what makes land have worth is what you're allowed to build on it. In somewhere like Beverly Hills, I'm sure all that zoning would allow for would be detached-single family homes with relatively spacious (for Southern California) yards. In contrast, in an area like Manhattan you could build basically anything you want on the land as long as you had the budget to build it (because demand is unconstrained as well). Thus the Manhattan land will be worth more.
Yes.Land near Fredericksburg goes for 10-14 thousand an acre.
I mean, that's not cheap, but it's not even in the same conversation as places like Manhattan or San Francisco or Malibu. According to this article (https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/486631/) from 2015, buildable land in Manhattan (south of 96th) has an average value of $569 per square foot, with some parcels claiming almost $1400 per square foot. Considering an acre is 43,560 sq ft, that would mean we're talking at almost $25 million dollars per acre. And that's based on that low-end average. At the $1375 per square foot that one parcel fetched, we're talking about almost $61 million per acre.
So even at $569 a sq. ft., that $14,000 that would get you an acre near Fredericksburg would get you a little less than 25 sq feet in Manhattan. That's about the size of a closet.
So even at $569 a sq. ft., that $14,000 that would get you an acre near Fredericksburg would get you a little less than 25 sq feet in Manhattan. That's about the size of a closet.
The difference is - clearly - in Manhattan you can build a 50 story residential building, which means the 25 square feet could become an average of 1,250 spread across all floors - more than enough space for a two-bedroom apartment.
The difference is - clearly - in Manhattan you can build a 50 story residential building, which means the 25 square feet could become an average of 1,250 spread across all floors - more than enough space for a two-bedroom apartment.
You can build a 50 story building lots of places. It just usually doesn't make economic sense. The high prices don't exist because you can build tall buildings. The tall buildings exist because the land is expensive and the demand is there.
You can build a 50 story building lots of places. It just usually doesn't make economic sense. The high prices don't exist because you can build tall buildings. The tall buildings exist because the land is expensive and the demand is there.
You certainly can't build a 50-story building in a lot of places. You could probably build one on less than 0.1% of the U.S.'s land area. Certainly you couldn't build one in Beverly Hills, or any of the other major "mansion districts" of the country, even though a developer would make well over an order of magnitude more money doing that than just building another mansion.
I mean, that's not cheap, but it's not even in the same conversation as places like Manhattan or San Francisco or Malibu. According to this article (https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/486631/) from 2015, buildable land in Manhattan (south of 96th) has an average value of $569 per square foot, with some parcels claiming almost $1400 per square foot. Considering an acre is 43,560 sq ft, that would mean we're talking at almost $25 million dollars per acre. And that's based on that low-end average. At the $1375 per square foot that one parcel fetched, we're talking about almost $61 million per acre.
So even at $569 a sq. ft., that $14,000 that would get you an acre near Fredericksburg would get you a little less than 25 sq feet in Manhattan. That's about the size of a closet.
True.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
