Just thinking out loud here. Most here agree that it's the land that goes up but the actual house goes down in value. If a new house has it's fair share of upkeep (rental mentals), would you be better off buying an older house in a better area? I'm asumeing that renters would pay for number of bedrooms etc and location rather than age of the house. A car will depreciate less each year as it gets older, would this also be true for a house? If this is true why are new houses so popular? A well kept old house in a nice location could be the ideal purchase... I'm kind of green on this stuff so please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious.
