To be fair, the average annual income in 1916 was about $570/year. So the cost of this home was approximately twice the average annual income of someone. Which yes, is cheaper than today. But land-use restrictions also play a huge role.
Discussion
I understand your point, but what's fair about draining the value of a currency away for spending on random other projects? even if the proportions still line up perfectly, given technological advancements since then, shouldn't homes be cheaper in an absolute sense?