I've always had the idea that when buying a house with land you should always try and get one with as much m2 of land as possible. Now I'm not so sure. Unless the land is big enough to split and develop your just paying higher rates, maintaining more fences and landscaped areas for the same amount of rent. Examples is Logan, where you can rent a house for $350/week on a 600m2 block or pay the same and live on a 930m2 block. The larger block can't be developed (minimum 1000m2). Over the same period of 18 months both houses were revalued by the bank for $30k more. So the larger property didn't have higher CG, as might have been expected. The above is a real situation with myself and my brother. Does anyone else have similar stories? What are your thoughts? Cheers.