Submitted by [deleted] t3_10keoq6 in massachusetts
Ruser8050 t1_j5qywgo wrote
Land is valued based on its current use, so .5 acre vs 1 acre are equal in absolute value because each represents a single buildable lot. The price per sq ft isn’t the way to look at land valuations. They will take factors such as location etc into account so it won’t be identical.
DaveGamelgard t1_j5r8vcu wrote
That makes about the most sense. Thank you
syphax t1_j5rfe7x wrote
If you plot the lot size (x axis) vs assessed value (y-axis), and fit a line to the (noisy) data, the y-intercept will tell you the implicit value of having a buildable lot of any size.
The pattern you see is totally typically. The marginal value of one additional sq ft is generally less than the average.
Example: let’s say you had 0.25 acres and your neighbor had 1 acre, and you were allowed to bargain for land on the border. Ignoring ability to pay, you’d probably value each marginal square foot more than your neighbor- they already have the space they need for a patio, swingset, chicken coop, yard.
ZaphodG t1_j5te02c wrote
This. If you scraped the existing house off the lot, what would the land be worth as a house lot. Square footage is not the appropriate way of measuring the value. I just looked at my abutters. If you made a land valuation model, it would look like:
Value = Base house lot value + variable part based on square footage
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments