Search results

No i agree that blocks are probably smaller these days but i'm not sure overall. It only happens in the new estates where developers squeeze as much $ out of infrastructure as they can. I can only respond to what i see and sometimes its hard to pick up subtleties or implications on the net.

You said 'the land was larger then' and i replied 'not always'. Meaning i dont think not all blocks of land were larger then. Which i thought was a valid & straight forward reply to your post. You said nothing about averages in your initial post. shhheeeeesssh...........:)

'not always' means that block sizes were not always larger 40-50 years ago. I dont think you can generalise like that. 'We can work on a sq m basis' means that a meaningful comparison would be on a dollar per square meter basis. I thought it was pretty straight forward.

not always. We can work on a sq. m basis if you like. :D

And i think Japanese women are very attractive. Is that relevant? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MzxwGazkLWU

So, do you agree that the house is not a very significant factor when comparing values from say 50 years ago to now. Its all about the land.

Ok, maybe this is a bit off topic but the argument when comparing prices from say 40 years ago to now is that houses were so much smaller then. Well that flies in the face of the "invest in the land" mantra where the land appreciates in value of the years. If thats the case,who cares about...

Yes i know that as i have done a few small developments in the 90s. But its not really answering my question.

What happened to the long held belief that property investing value is in the land , not the house. Its the land that appreciates over the years, as the mantra goes. Does that only count when its convenient?