Didn't know how to word the title, but here it goes,
3 properties, assuming, residential, same suburb, next door to eachother, identical in every way except for the following.
POLL QUESTION
No 1: 700sqm with one shabby house (Say worth $300k)
No 2: 1050sqm with one shabby house
Just FYI, 1050sq = exactly 1.5 times 700sqm
and
$450k = exactly 1.5 times $300k
And please do a follow up comment if No 2 had one shabby house with a shabby unit/bungalow in the back that can be rented.
I have always wondered this, as when a tenant is looking for a house, they normally look at the house, design, whether it has a yard etc. etc.but a slightly larger piece of land, they probably won't be willing to pay extra for it, and how does this equation change if there is a unit/bungalow at the back, it makes it more inconvenient for the house in the front, but offset by rental income. However, if there is no unit/bungalow, it will still cost to build one, no matter how shabby
so catch 22's all around
3 properties, assuming, residential, same suburb, next door to eachother, identical in every way except for the following.
POLL QUESTION
No 1: 700sqm with one shabby house (Say worth $300k)
No 2: 1050sqm with one shabby house
Just FYI, 1050sq = exactly 1.5 times 700sqm
and
$450k = exactly 1.5 times $300k
And please do a follow up comment if No 2 had one shabby house with a shabby unit/bungalow in the back that can be rented.
I have always wondered this, as when a tenant is looking for a house, they normally look at the house, design, whether it has a yard etc. etc.but a slightly larger piece of land, they probably won't be willing to pay extra for it, and how does this equation change if there is a unit/bungalow at the back, it makes it more inconvenient for the house in the front, but offset by rental income. However, if there is no unit/bungalow, it will still cost to build one, no matter how shabby
so catch 22's all around
Last edited: