Developers must be working on razor thin margins if they're legitimately arguing that material costs are a problem for them (material costs are around $25-35K for a $200K home). Permits too are a drop in the bucket ($2.5K for permits is considered high).
Most of the problems are going to be labour, land, and the cost of being up to "code." I fully support building codes, they keep homes safe, and give people the "basics" we have come to expect. But it is a legitimate cost in building a home (i.e. a basic log cabin with wood fireplace is illegal in most cities).
$200K homes definitely still exist, but typical in areas where land is cheap, which tells you where the lion's share of the problem really comes from (e.g. you're not getting a 200K home on a 150K plot).
I bought my first home last year and I didn't even consider building. The thought didn't even occur to me as an option. I think we are seeing a shift in mindset here - I would guess that people in my position are just buying older houses because they are cheaper than building and readily available ( at least where I live ). I paid well under $200k.
3 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadMost of the problems are going to be labour, land, and the cost of being up to "code." I fully support building codes, they keep homes safe, and give people the "basics" we have come to expect. But it is a legitimate cost in building a home (i.e. a basic log cabin with wood fireplace is illegal in most cities).
$200K homes definitely still exist, but typical in areas where land is cheap, which tells you where the lion's share of the problem really comes from (e.g. you're not getting a 200K home on a 150K plot).