I know that generally, houses are more expensive than apartments, even with the same bedrooms, bathrooms and floor area, because of the land content. This represents the potential change of use down the track which means a developer could pay big bucks.
Like my parent's place, which has gone up hugely because it could easily be knocked down and 2 units built in its place - the value is the potential to do that.
But what about for an inner city terrace which is strictly controlled, no extension or redevelopment potential. It would still go for twice the price of an apartment of the same size and features.
Is it all just "character" premium that people want to live in a terrace, and I guess a "no body corporate" premium added on? Or do people have a stigma against apartments that they will never live in one, even if larger and cheaper and nicer and better located?
Like my parent's place, which has gone up hugely because it could easily be knocked down and 2 units built in its place - the value is the potential to do that.
But what about for an inner city terrace which is strictly controlled, no extension or redevelopment potential. It would still go for twice the price of an apartment of the same size and features.
Is it all just "character" premium that people want to live in a terrace, and I guess a "no body corporate" premium added on? Or do people have a stigma against apartments that they will never live in one, even if larger and cheaper and nicer and better located?