undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyellowapple4y ago0 comments

> nothing says the higher density one must have a higher or lower value

Local population (incl. the density thereof) is arguably the driver of value, moreso than any other factor besides sheer size and maybe location (in exceptional cases, e.g. adjacent to a coastline). If you could build a store or a restaurant anywhere, then all else being equal, would you build it where there are 10,000 potential customers within walking distance or where there are merely 1,000? Likewise, are you going to move where there are lots of places to eat and shop or where there are few? Generally people want to be where other people are, and this produces a positive feedback loop between local population and demand for land; there are exceptions, of course (some people like to live away from population centers instead of in the middle of them), but they ain't numerous enough to meaningfully suppress that feedback loop.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Retric4y ago

That breaks down when your dealing with properties next to each other. The surrounding area can easily dwarf the difference a single property makes here.

Assuming all things where equal the lower population density one might be assessed at a higher LTV because it’s next to a higher population density and the higher population density one would be assessed lower because it’s next to a low population density one.

But the actual effect depends on many factors, being next to poor people generally lowers property values etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse