The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments

The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments
If, as you imply, houses are not investments then my definition of investment differs from your. I can see the consumable rule applying to a hamburger but not to a 'good' that retains value in the market place. The house, while possibly of eroding value, retains value to other purchasers. In that sense, I see a house to be a money substitute, something that an individual may choose to invest time and energy into rather, especially when faced with fiat currency, than something akin to a Madoff investment scheme.
Would you grant that to a builder or a developer, a house is an investment? In the sense that an Ipod is the reason we build the factory, a capitalist will purchase the necessary 'bricks and mortar' to build a factory to produce a consumer good, anticipating a future return on the original investment. In that sense, I can see the house to be rather similar to a few crates of Ipods. Do you consider the investment characteristic to end when something is not able to produce futher goods?
If I choose to build a hotel with my 'bricks and motar' does the hotel become an investment? If that is the case, renting the house to someone should also recatigorize the house as an investment.
Confused.