You hit on one of the considerations - having no kids one can "consume" the asset over time. This would mean, of course, knowing when one is going to die. If I understand annuities correctly then someone agrees to pay you $X per month untill you die and then they keep the principal.
I am led to believe that there are even schemes where one can get paid $X per month for their house which is then surrendered upon death. I remember a story about a French woman who lived to 120, by which time her young accountant who took the other side of the transaction was 90 and going broke!!
I agree that $100k per year (in current terms) is quite ample.
I am personally fond of RE (it has always been good to me). Even if one "holds forever" (as we do) then we still get value from the increased rental income over time. The downside of RE is the amount of involvement required (even when you have a good managing agent). Of course going back to the consuming assets scenario, one would progressively sell the investment properties o fund an annual "Womans Weekly World Discovery Tour" (and a nurse to push one's wheel chair around). I have heard of some who recommend to not sell the properties but to just keep borrowing against them - thus avoiding CG tax.
I don't think that direct RE investment would qualify as "lazy".
