Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land?


What you pay for a house really has very little to do with
the cost of the land and the cost of building a house, and
much more to do with what the market will bear in that area
for x bedrooms, y reception rooms, and z bathrooms.


The land doesn't go away......


Rebuilding cost of an end-of-terrace 1895 house was nearly
double the market value. You couldn't just stick a modern
Barratt rabbit hutch up there if it burned down. You would
have to build a terraced property to join on and reasonably
well blend in to the rest (doesn't need to be a perfect
match), but to current building standards.

Rebuilding my house has cost about half of what its current market value is.

YMMV.

When a family friends house burnt down, the shell and land went for the
original house cost. The newer rebuild was infinitely better than the
old house and commanded a little under twice the price.