Seems like semantics to me: you can't buy a house without essentially buying land. If you could, I absolutely would.
The fundamental problem here is not one of economics, but of politics. You can't live in a stable, dignified manner without paying to be part of a state-run monopoly (land ownership), so everybody who can does, so land titles (note the word) become absurdly expensive.
There is no real connection between land and living space - multiple story housing exists, and if housing was built to a reasonable density, there's more than enough land for everybody to live in whatever size house they could afford to build.
It’s sensible though to think “Why don’t houses depreciate like used cars? After all, they also wear out.”
Side note 1: There are places where you can (sometimes only can) lease the land for 99 years. This has the predictable effect in terms of willingness to build/improve the land, especially as the lease term is drawing to an end.
Side note 2: these discussions almost inevitably summon the proponents of land-value-tax to encourage denser use of valuable land. They’ll be along shortly, I’m sure.
> There is no real connection between land and living space - multiple story housing exists, and if housing was built to a reasonable density, there's more than enough land for everybody to live in whatever size house they could afford to build.
All land does not have the same or even similar perceived utility to all people. Some land is has much more demand relative to supply than other land.
The fundamental problem here is not one of economics, but of politics. You can't live in a stable, dignified manner without paying to be part of a state-run monopoly (land ownership), so everybody who can does, so land titles (note the word) become absurdly expensive.
There is no real connection between land and living space - multiple story housing exists, and if housing was built to a reasonable density, there's more than enough land for everybody to live in whatever size house they could afford to build.