Tract size effect on market price for land?

Hoytvectrix

5 year old buck +
Somewhat of a quick question. I'm curious if the tract size tends to have a positive or negative impact on a price per acre value for land for sale?
For example, is a contiguous block of 300 acres going to have a higher or lower price per acre than two non-connected properties that are each 150 acres? Assuming all are identical in amenities, soil types, vegetation, etc.
 

Mortenson

5 year old buck +
Here the 150s would be slightly higher than the 300. If you're talking a very desirable small parcel such as 20 to 60 then a steeper premium will be on it.
 

Howboutthemdawgs

5 year old buck +
In my research it’s almost a wash…and I look at land daily. Historically there is somewhat of a scaling dynamic with larger tracts where they are cheaper per acre but in todays world with land being developed and divided, larger contiguous tracts are a unicorn. They are started to get priced to capture that uniqueness. Listings will market the heck out of that aspect and rightfully so.
Conversely with land prices rising so rapidly it is pricing most folks out of larger tracts so smaller tracts are more desirable. With that you have the demand issue making prices high.

It’s tough to say from my opinion.
 

4wanderingeyes

5 year old buck +
I think 500 acres is about the line where there is a price per acre reduction. You lose a lot of buyers with the bigger price tags. 150-300 there is still a lot of the same buyers.

By me there was a 1400 acre section that sold recently, it sold at $2000per acre, when everything else is $3000+

I think they should have broken it up, and they could have gotten more money. This was in 2019, I thought it was more recent.
 

Baker

5 year old buck +
Ironic thread as my sister just sold their farm in the Hebron Valley of Va. last week. 599 acres of absolutely drop dead beautiful country impeccably manicured with a new home, carriage house and legacy farm house on it. Maybe 100 acres leased out for soybeans but the rest rolling hills planted for beauty and wildlife. Maybe 200 acres woods. They got top of the market asking price from first person to look at farm before it ever went on the market. Buyer also bought all the toys tractors, many of the furnishings.....

Point is I think high quality properties will always have a buyer regardless of scale . In fact scale can be an advantage. Do I remember the 6666 ranch in Texas just sold?
 

Wind Gypsy

5 year old buck +
Point is I think high quality properties will always have a buyer regardless of scale . In fact scale can be an advantage. Do I remember the 6666 ranch in Texas just sold?

Was about to make a dumb joke about John Dutton buying it and it turns out Taylor Sheridan the writer/producer of Yellowstone and 1883 led the group that bought it for $200 mil.
 

Wind Gypsy

5 year old buck +
It seemed to me that the 20-100 acre spots have a slight premium because there’s more people who can swing a purchase for them but never done detailed analytics.

I have a running MLS search that has been active for maybe 18 months and looked through all the listings recently. Pretty lousy market out there in MN right now for properties available!

Had my realtor add another search to include properties with homes rather than just vacant land. In a roughly 2 hr radius of Minneapolis (less far south and southwest) there were only 16 properties with a dwelling, 35+ acres, and a list price under $800k.
 

sandbur

5 year old buck +
The definition of large and small properties varies with the area and access to large metros.

160 acres is large too many, but insignificant to a western rancher with thousands of acres of poor range. If it has water for him, it would be different.

Size does make a difference, but there is no universal definition of large or small.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top