> Instead of posting here, why not take your fantastic housing model (they depereciate) and go buy homes.
It is often true that the old house on a piece of valuable land would cost more to repair than it would cost to build a new house on that land.
Often enough the added cost of removing the old house (the use of asbestos in the past often vastly increases that cost) added on top of everything means that the land itself can loose its value.
We see this a lot with old industrial sites, but it happens to residential buildings too.
As for "timescales", do not be mean. The time-scale for depreciation of a car that is in use is measured in seconds New cars loose a third (? I know more about property than cars?) of their value when driven off the lot. Houses take a bit longer, but not "geological time-scales"
It is often true that the old house on a piece of valuable land would cost more to repair than it would cost to build a new house on that land.
Often enough the added cost of removing the old house (the use of asbestos in the past often vastly increases that cost) added on top of everything means that the land itself can loose its value.
We see this a lot with old industrial sites, but it happens to residential buildings too.
As for "timescales", do not be mean. The time-scale for depreciation of a car that is in use is measured in seconds New cars loose a third (? I know more about property than cars?) of their value when driven off the lot. Houses take a bit longer, but not "geological time-scales"