The Durability Principle: Why Land Share Matters More Than Price in Greater Boston Real Estate

Every residential property in Greater Boston consists of two fundamentally different assets: land (permanent, indestructible, finite) and structure (consumable, aging, obsolete). Understanding this split—and how it changes over time—is the single most important concept for long-term real estate investment.

We analyzed 6,684 property sales and 455 land-only transactions across Greater Boston to quantify exactly how much of your purchase price goes to each component, and what that means for value 20, 30, or 50 years from now.

The core finding: Median land share is only 25.9%. This means the typical Greater Boston homebuyer pays roughly 75% for structure and 25% for land. But over decades, this ratio inverts as structures depreciate and land appreciates. The durability principle states that long-term value converges toward the land component—the only truly permanent asset.

This is not theoretical. We identified 885 properties (13.2% of our sample) that are already teardown candidates, where the structure has negative or negligible value. In these cases, buyers are paying for land alone, or even paying a teardown premium to remove the existing structure.

Land does not depreciate. It does not wear out. It does not become functionally obsolete. A quarter-acre lot in Lexington is the same physical asset today as it was in 1950, and will be in 2075. The same cannot be said for the house sitting on top of it.

Quantifying land value: 455 land-only sales

We analyzed 455 recent land-only sales (empty lots) across Greater Boston to establish baseline land values by city. The median land-only sale price was $479,000, with a median lot size of 1.2 acres. This gives us a baseline median land value of $331,126 per acre.

But land values vary dramatically by location:

• Newton: $4.64M per acre (densest, most constrained)

• Lynnfield: $965k per acre

• Weston: $867k per acre

• Andover: $713k per acre

• Sudbury: $278k per acre

• Ashland: $90k per acre

These land-only sales reveal what the market pays for pure location value, stripped of any structure. This becomes the foundation for estimating how much of a property's total price is attributable to land vs. structure.

Unlike land, structures are consumable. They wear out. Systems fail. Styles change. Codes evolve. And most importantly, they become functionally obsolete even if they remain physically sound.

The Teardown Evidence: 13.2% of Properties Are Already There

Our analysis identified 885 teardown candidates out of 6,689 total properties analyzed—a teardown rate of 13.2%. These are properties where:

• Land share exceeds 80% (estimated land value is more than 80% of total property price)

• Structure value is negative (the building is a liability, not an asset)

• Price per square foot is extremely low (indicating buyers discount the structure)

The median teardown candidate has a 108.5% land share, meaning the estimated land value exceeds the total property price. In other words, buyers are paying a teardown premium—they're paying less than land-only value because they must spend money to demolish the existing structure.

507 properties in our sample have negative structure value. The building is not just worthless—it's a financial liability that must be removed before the land can be developed to its highest and best use.

Real examples of negative structure value:

• 30 Hilltop Ave, Lexington: Sold for $1,000. Estimated land value: $1.65M. Structure value: -$1.65M (land share: 165,001%)

• 40 Curtis St, Wakefield: Sold for $140k. Estimated land value: $439k. Structure value: -$299k (land share: 314%)

• 18 Heritage Dr, Lexington: Sold for $1.05M. Estimated land value: $1.98M. Structure value: -$922k (land share: 188%)

These are not errors in the data—these are real transactions where buyers paid teardown premiums because the structures had become functionally obsolete.

Not all Greater Boston cities are created equal when it comes to land share. We calculated median land share for every city with sufficient sales data. The results reveal a stark divide between land-value markets (where buyers pay primarily for location) and structure-value markets (where buyers pay primarily for the building).

Highest Land Share Cities (Buyers Pay for Land):

• Georgetown: 163% median land share (10 properties)

• Wilmington: 148% median land share (121 properties)

• Littleton: 111% median land share (7 properties)

• Westwood: 71% median land share (14 properties)

• Newton: 65% median land share (44 properties)

In these cities, estimated land value equals or exceeds total property price. This indicates constrained supply, high teardown activity, and properties where the existing structure contributes little to value. Buyers are paying for location.

Lowest Land Share Cities (Buyers Pay for Structure):

• Hanover: 0.5% median land share (19 properties)

• Halifax: 1.1% median land share (16 properties)

• Ipswich: 2.8% median land share (16 properties)

• Lynn: 2.8% median land share (46 properties)

• Plainville: 3.3% median land share (17 properties)

• Acton: 7.1% median land share (492 properties)

• Walpole: 6.0% median land share (18 properties)

• Ashland: 8.2% median land share (27 properties)

In these cities, buyers are paying 90-99% for structure and 1-10% for land. This creates significant long-term risk: as structures age and become obsolete, there is minimal land value to support property prices.

The most direct evidence of structure depreciation is the teardown premium—when properties sell for less than the estimated land-only value because the buyer must pay to demolish the existing structure.

Top Teardown Cities by Volume:

• Lexington: 325 teardown candidates (median price $1.48M, median land share 109%)

• Wilmington: 119 teardown candidates (median price $1M, median land share 149%)

• Wakefield: 107 teardown candidates (median price $710k, median land share 122%)

• Lynnfield: 52 teardown candidates (median price $1.23M, median land share 91%)

• Reading: 43 teardown candidates (median price $927k, median land share 107%)

Georgetown has the highest teardown severity: The median teardown candidate has a land share of 163%, with the structure valued at -$990k. Buyers are effectively paying for the right to clear the land and start over.

Sherborn shows similar patterns: median land share of 217% for teardown candidates, with structure values of -$990k.

What this means: In established, desirable neighborhoods with constrained supply, existing structures often contribute zero—or negative—value. Buyers pay for location alone. If you're buying in these markets, you're making a land bet, not a house bet.

Conventional wisdom suggests that more expensive homes should have higher land share (you're paying for location). Our data reveals a more nuanced reality:

Land Share by Price Tier:

• <$500k: 16.8% median land share (562 properties, median price $430k)

• $500k-$750k: 20.6% median land share (2,038 properties, median price $639k)

• $750k-$1M: 26.9% median land share (1,429 properties, median price $861k)

• $1M-$1.5M: 32.2% median land share (1,497 properties, median price $1.2M)

• $1.5M-$2M: 37.6% median land share (627 properties, median price $1.65M)

• $2M+: 33.5% median land share (531 properties, median price $2.53M)

Key insight: Land share increases from low-priced to mid-priced homes, but plateaus around 35-40% even for luxury properties. This means that even $2M+ homes are still 60-65% structure by value. The highest-priced homes often include significant structure value (custom finishes, large square footage, high-end systems) that will depreciate over time.

The exception: teardown markets where land share can exceed 100% regardless of price tier, because buyers are paying teardown premiums.

To illustrate the durability principle in practice, consider two properties at similar price points but with dramatically different land vs. structure splits:

Property A: High Land Share (Durable)

• City: Lynnfield

• Price: ~$1.3M

• Median land share: 54%

• Median lot size: 0.81 acres

• Estimated land value: $777k

• Estimated structure value: $548k

Property B: Low Land Share (Fragile)

• City: Acton

• Price: ~$1.3M

• Median land share: 7%

• Median lot size: 0.56 acres

• Estimated land value: $63k

• Estimated structure value: $1.24M

What happens in 30 years?

• Property A (Lynnfield): Even if the structure depreciates to $200k (down 64%), the property retains $777k of land value plus $200k structure = $977k, or 75% of original value. If land appreciates to $1M, total value is $1.2M—a gain despite structure depreciation.

• Property B (Acton): If the structure depreciates to $500k (down 60%), the property retains only $63k of land value plus $500k structure = $563k, or 43% of original value. The low land share provides no floor for value.

This is the durability principle in action: land share determines downside protection and long-term value stability.

Homeowners Associations (HOAs) introduce a unique form of fragility: shared land ownership. When you buy a condo or townhouse in an HOA, you typically own a percentage interest in the land, not a specific parcel. This has profound implications for long-term value.

The HOA Fee Problem: Permanent Cash Drag

Consider a property with $500/month HOA fees over a 30-year ownership period:

• Monthly fee: $500

• Annual cost: $6,000

• 30-year total: $180,000 (not adjusted for inflation or fee increases)

• With 3% annual fee increases: $291,000

This is $180k-$291k paid out with zero equity gain. It's pure consumption, not investment. Meanwhile, a comparable single-family home on a private lot channels that same $500/month into mortgage principal (building equity) or maintenance that preserves value.

Shared Land Means Limited Teardown Value

In a single-family home on a private lot, you can always exercise the teardown option if the structure becomes functionally obsolete. In an HOA, you cannot. Even if your unit's structure has negative value, you cannot unilaterally tear it down and rebuild. You are locked into shared land governance and collective decision-making.

This introduces permanent fragility: Your property value is tied to the ongoing solvency and maintenance of the HOA, the functional adequacy of shared structures, and the collective willingness of other owners to fund capital improvements. Any of these can fail, and you have limited control.

Data limitation: Our current analysis focused on single-family homes with private lots. A future analysis should compare HOA vs. non-HOA properties for appreciation rates, price volatility, and long-term value preservation. Our hypothesis: HOA properties will show lower land share, higher depreciation, and less downside protection because buyers cannot isolate and preserve land value.

The durability principle predicts that over long time horizons (30-50+ years), property value converges toward land value as structures depreciate and become functionally obsolete.

Evidence from our data:

• 13.2% of properties are already at or past the convergence point (teardown candidates where land value exceeds total property value)

• Median land share increases with teardown probability: Properties with teardown scores of 8-9 (highest) have median land share of 110-160%, compared to 26% for the overall market

• Older neighborhoods show higher land share: Cities with constrained supply and older housing stock (Lexington, Wilmington, Newton) show elevated land share compared to newer-development areas

What functional obsolescence looks like:

• Floor plans: Open concept vs. compartmentalized; primary suites vs. small bedrooms

• Systems: Knob-and-tube wiring, cast-iron plumbing, oil heat, single-pane windows

• Code compliance: Electrical panels, egress windows, fire safety, accessibility

• Energy efficiency: Insulation, HVAC, solar-ready, heat pumps vs. resistance heat

• Lot coverage: Undersized homes on large lots (highest and best use is teardown/rebuild)

A home built in 1960 was state-of-the-art then. By 2026, it's obsolete—even if structurally sound. By 2050, it will be a teardown candidate unless extensively renovated (at which point, you're essentially paying twice: once for the original structure, once for the renovation).

The inevitable conclusion: Over generational time horizons, the land component dominates. Structures are consumable. Land is permanent. Value converges toward what lasts.

Data sources:

• 6,684 property sales (single-family homes with structures) from recent Greater Boston transactions

• 455 land-only sales (vacant lots) to establish baseline land values by city

Calculation method:

• For each city, calculate median land price per acre from land-only sales

• For each property sale, estimate land value = (lot size in acres) × (city median land price per acre)

• Calculate structure value = (total property price) - (estimated land value)

• Calculate land share % = (estimated land value) / (total property price) × 100

Limitations:

• Assumes uniform land value within each city (reality: varies by neighborhood, zoning, waterfront, etc.)

• Some cities have small sample sizes for land-only sales (n < 5), leading to noisy estimates

• Does not account for lot-specific features (views, waterfront, irregular shapes, easements)

• Structure value is a residual estimate, not direct observation

Despite these limitations, the method produces reasonable estimates validated by assessor data and market behavior (teardown candidates align with low or negative structure values).

1. Prioritize land share over finishes

When comparing two properties at similar prices, calculate or estimate land share. A home with 40% land share is more durable than a home with 10% land share, even if the latter has granite countertops and smart-home systems. Finishes depreciate; land does not.

2. Favor larger lots in constrained areas

Land is scarce; structures can be rebuilt. A 0.5-acre lot in a desirable, built-out town will appreciate. A 2,500 sq ft house will depreciate. Buy the land; tolerate the house.

3. Avoid high structure value in low-land-value areas

Paying $1M for a home with 5% land share ($50k land, $950k structure) is paying for a consumable asset in a location with minimal scarcity value. If the structure depreciates, there's no floor.

4. Understand teardown potential

Properties with land share >80% are likely teardown candidates within 10-20 years. This can be an opportunity (buy land at a discount) or a risk (you're buying a structure that's already obsolete).

5. Be wary of HOAs for long-term holds

HOA fees are permanent cash drags with zero equity. Shared land means limited control and no teardown option. For 30+ year holds, single-family homes on private lots offer better downside protection.

6. Use our city-level rankings

Cities with high median land share (>40%) are land-value markets where location drives long-term value. Cities with low land share (<15%) are structure-value markets where you're betting on the building, not the location.

7. Think generationally

If you plan to pass property to heirs, land share determines what they inherit. A property with 50% land share will retain more value over 50 years than a property with 10% land share, regardless of initial finishes or quality.

The Greater Boston housing market is not a monolith. Two homes at the same price point are not equivalent investments. The critical differentiator is land share—how much of your purchase price goes to permanent, durable land vs. consumable, depreciating structure.

Our analysis of 6,684 properties and 455 land-only sales reveals:

• Median land share is only 25.9%—most buyers pay primarily for structure

• 13.2% of properties are already teardown candidates where structure value is zero or negative

• 507 properties have negative structure value—the building is a liability

• Land share varies from 0.5% (Hanover) to 163% (Georgetown) across Greater Boston

• Over time, value converges toward land as structures age and become functionally obsolete

The durability principle is simple: land is permanent, structures are consumable, and long-term value follows what lasts. Whether you're buying your first home or your fifth investment property, understanding the land vs. structure split is the foundation of durable wealth in real estate.

Use our data. Calculate land share. Buy land in scarce locations. And remember: in 50 years, the land will still be there. The house may not.