|
lumbergill posted:Can someone tell me about different types of housing construction? I'm looking at buying a house, and am confused as to the pros/cons of different choices. Pretty much all houses from that era in Austin are going to be pier and beam foundation with wood frame construction. Even if it looks like brick or stone on the outside, that will just be the exterior, the house is still gonna be wood frame. If it's not brick on the outside (the vast majority of Austin homes, particularly the older ones), the exterior will be either wood or, if it's been renovated recently, hardie. Composition shingle roofs have a finite lifespan, metal lasts much, much longer (my roof is metal and very, very old and still not leaking). I've only ever seen slate roofs on some really high end houses over in West Lake it's not common in Austin. In the 50s, is when they started to use concrete slab foundations but the house's construction is still going to be wood frame. The disadvantages of an older home can be all of the things outlined above. You need to get a good home inspector who will really investigate all the possible problems. (FWIW, I live in East Austin in a 1925 house and, yeah, it's got things to fix but it's basically sound and, most importantly, in an ideal location. If I'd wanted new, it'd been either way out in the burbs or infill on a central lot and probably two or three times what I paid.)
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Chin Strap posted:What do you think about marmoleum? Is ceramic tile practical for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Is ceramic tile practical for you? I don't think I would want tile in a whole house. Even if I did that sounds pricy. Anyway we need to pull up the carpet first and see what's under there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Is anyone familiar with using the VA loan for multiple properties? I currently have a property in another state that I use as a rental that I make a decent profit on. I would like to purchase a home to use as my primary residence where I currently live. Both properties combined would be less than the 417K cap in my area. I have done some reading, but the information is a bit confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Can anyone suggest a good DIY home repairs and improvement book to buy for someone getting their first house?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Although their tools are complete crap, the Black and Decker series of home owner's books are reasonably priced and probably the best intro to mid level resource you can buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Looking at a house built in 1929, but with a new roof, plumbing, and electric. Needs paint and some drywall patching, needs a new washer and oven. It's raised, and everything underneath looks good to my untrained eye. We're concerned about the age. If an inspector says that things are fine, is there anything else to worry about, or Do Never Buy an old house? Other factors: we love our rental, but rent is high; we'd be paying the same after mortgage, homeowners insurance, extra utilities, etc. Our rental is also cramped; we'd have another 500 sqft with the house. The house also has a huge kitchen and a huge patio, which I find appealing
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
When the mortgage and rent is the same you'll still probably have at least $100-200 more in expenses on a house not in the mortgage than the rent. Set aside money for a water heater, central air, roof replacement. Also don't ignore lawn work as "free." Tools and time cost money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We're concerned about the age. If an inspector says that things are fine, is there anything else to worry about, or Do Never Buy an old house? Even very good inspectors (which are rare) can miss serious problems that are hidden away in inaccessible places. Old houses have a lot of extra opportunities for these.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
So what should the plan here be, hire like 3 different inspectors and hope for the best or just walk away whistling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:Even very good inspectors (which are rare) can miss serious problems that are hidden away in inaccessible places. Old houses have a lot of extra opportunities for these. The current This Old House project had an entire rear staircase the owners never knew was there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:So what should the plan here be, hire like 3 different inspectors and hope for the best or just walk away whistling? FWIW even the best inspectors will miss stuff and the most important + expensive things they simply can't check without ripping open walls and ceilings left and right. Typically very old houses are huge on-going financial disasters that you get to live in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
We looked at a house this weekend that seemed like a potential contender for our first home. Its located in Lansdale, PA for reference. Reviewing the sale history on Zillow, I noticed that it had been sold every 3-4 years over the last decade, all for around the same price. Our realtor said that us actually not that unusual to see a home turn over that often, and he believes the current owners were using it as a rental property which might explain why it went on and off the market a few times in the last two years. Is that a reasonable explanation? Obviously we'll do our homework but I wasn't sure if frequent sales like that inherently indicated some problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:We looked at a house this weekend that seemed like a potential contender for our first home. Its located in Lansdale, PA for reference. Reviewing the sale history on Zillow, I noticed that it had been sold every 3-4 years over the last decade, all for around the same price. Our realtor said that us actually not that unusual to see a home turn over that often, and he believes the current owners were using it as a rental property which might explain why it went on and off the market a few times in the last two years. Is that a reasonable explanation? Obviously we'll do our homework but I wasn't sure if frequent sales like that inherently indicated some problem. Well, Legally if those homeowners ran into something they couldn't fix and was wrong with the house they'd have to disclose. 4 years seems a bit close together to me but at the same time the notion of the "starter" house has been around for the last decade so if it fits that sort of category every 3/4 years could make sense? Is the layout odd? Do the walls seem to have decent insulation? Have they been running the heater super high every time you've viewed the house? The one thing we didn't think about when we bought our house was the insulation. Every time we saw our house in the winter the heat was really cranked up and it turns out the walls are pretty poorly insulated in our house. It's not bad enough for us to want to move but honestly, we are 4 years into ownership and I could see us selling now if we were a tiny bit more irritated with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
When I was looking at the house I have a contact on I said to myself "hm, the water is still on but the heat is off. I hope they take care of this before the temperature plunges to negative digits." I guess I'll have to take another look after they conduct the repairs to see if I need to use this to break the contract. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:I don't think I would want tile in a whole house. Even if I did that sounds pricy. Anyway we need to pull up the carpet first and see what's under there. The downside of tile in the whole house is it is cold on the feet
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:So what should the plan here be, hire like 3 different inspectors and hope for the best or just walk away whistling? 1: Don't buy any house, of any age, if you can't afford to take the hit of a repair that costs 5-10% of the home's value. I'm not saying you need to have that much cash on hand, but if an unplanned $10,000 expense spells financial ruin, you probably aren't ready for homeownership. 2: If you find certain risks unacceptable, such as the possibility of lead paint, asbestos, or knob & tube wiring, don't buy an old house (inspection can help detect these, but it's no guarantee) 3: Recognize that older houses will have a higher TCO, through both maintenance and inefficiency, and weigh that in when evaluating the price of the home. (Edit: your own handiness is a significant factor here; if you have to hire someone to do everything, it will get expensive fast, and you'll be left putting up with a lot more problems than if you can do most of the work yourself) Zhentar fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Well, Legally if those homeowners ran into something they couldn't fix and was wrong with the house they'd have to disclose. 4 years seems a bit close together to me but at the same time the notion of the "starter" house has been around for the last decade so if it fits that sort of category every 3/4 years could make sense? I guess it would fit in a "starter" home for some people. 3-4 bedrooms, but on of the "bedrooms" is really more of an office, in that it's a bit narrow and has glass doors. The "master" bedroom is up on the third floor, essentially the attic, and a bit awkward to get to. It's also an older home, but a lot of stuff has been updated. Kitchen and bathrooms are newish, there's a high efficiency natural gas furnace that looks nearly brand new, as furnaces go. I did not check on insulation yet, as I was waiting to get a look at the seller's disclosure before taking the time to do another walkthrough, also debating whether we want to live in town or look for something more rural. So yeah, odd layout, old home, possible insulation issues. That could explain it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:If it were me unless I realllly loved the house + was getting a steal (ie. 30%+ under market value) I'd walk away. Even with the updates that were done. Very few ever do the updates properly due to the costs involved so things tend to get done half assed "good enough" manner that festers behind the walls and blows up a year or 2 down the road. Sounds good, thanks thread. I've walked away. It definitely wasn't a steal or a perfect dream home or anything
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
I know it's cliche to say, but if you've never owned a home watch a bunch of Holmes on Homes, Income Property, and/or Property Brothers before you start buying. You'll see the following happen a ton: 1. Getting too tied to a specific location or feature and overpaying for it 2. Stretching the budget to afford the better location/bigger house and there's a $10,000 problem behind a wall 3. Waiving inspections or ignoring red flags to put in the "best offer" 4. Falling in love with a house and ignoring obvious problems or overpaying 5. Trusting the wrong people and not getting things in writing 6. Underestimating the total cost of ownership 7. Choosing the cheapest way to do X 8. Overreacting to cosmetics (paint colors, fixtures) and ignoring structure Yeah, each show's shtick gets old eventually, but seeing people come across problems and deal with them is good. You might even catch yourself spotting problems you wouldn't have known to look for before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
I'm surprised at all the strong words about old homes. I'll be buying something built 1910-1930 in the next 6 months so I'm already nervous about that. What do you think is a better approach: Sacrifice size for condition/modernization or go for "couple lived it in for 60 years then died" and nothing has been touched. I've noticed that you can generally give up about 20% of the square footage in exchange for much better kept houses with (at least cosmetic) modernizations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:When the mortgage and rent is the same you'll still probably have at least $100-200 more in expenses on a house not in the mortgage than the rent. Set aside money for a water heater, central air, roof replacement. Also don't ignore lawn work as "free." Tools and time cost money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:So landlords lose money on average? Landlords will let you pay a lot on busted a/c units, dishwashers, and water heaters through electrical bills before a home owner would have long changed it. Also, when it is yours you don't buy the cheapest possible to rent out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
poo poo, I'd rather buy a 100 year old house that has been taken care of then an 8 year old house built during the boom by some shady rear end construction company looking to cut costs anywhere they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:So landlords lose money on average? Professional landlords don't buy homes at mortgage = rent values, that wouldn't be a good rental grade investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Renting today in North America basically only works profitably at small-scale if you get a pretty drat good steal of a house (and I mean as great value including minimal upkeep) and you have a steady stream of renters while they basically pay off the house for you. The conversation belongs more in the rental / landlord thread though.Jealous Cow posted:What do you think is a better approach: Ranma posted:poo poo, I'd rather buy a 100 year old house that has been taken care of then an 8 year old house built during the boom by some shady rear end construction company looking to cut costs anywhere they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I need some advice. I have a 5.5% 30 year conventional mortgage on my house, and i'm about 5 years into it. It was originally for $89,500 and is now for like $83,something. EDIT: Important information: the house comps in the neighborhood are in the $130,000 to $150,000 range, almost exclusively dependent on square footage - I'm on the low end of that, so I used the 'your house would be worth' number of $130,000. On a lark, I looked at the refi options for USAA, and their 30 year mortgage is nearly $300 a month less, and their 15 is about the same as my current payments. The question mostly stems from the fact that the closing fees would essentially wipe out any principal I've paid down if I roll the closing costs into the mortgage, which is likely to be done because I honestly don't have that kind of spare cash to put into this, as my income has been very spotty due to being self employed, and I don't foresee there being a substantial boost (or decrease) in the near future. It still results in cutting a decade off the length of the loan. The 30 year cuts the payment substantially, and while I know i'm going to be paying longer-term on this, I'm in the position of being self employed and having wildly variable income year to year, and there's some appeal of basically cutting my mortgage payment outlay by 25% - even though I'll pay a ton longer-term. Fiscially I know the 15 is the route to go, and likely that's what I'd do, but am I somehow missing something that would make this a completely loving awful idea? This is the info I'm working off of to figure out if this is worth the time. cstine fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
You could go for the 30, and then make additional or higher payments when you can afford them to accelerate your mortgage payoff. Both of those mortgages have you paying points for lower rates, plus significant fees, and that might not make sense if you're just going to roll the points back into the loan. Those don't look like especially wonderful interest rates or fees, either; have you gotten competitive quotes from multiple banks, which take your personal particulars into account? Paying $6400 to refinance $83k is kind of a lot: about 7% of the loan value if my math is right. Also, are you paying PMI, and has the value of your home changed? If you are paying PMI and your house has appreciated, it might be worth doing an appraisal just to get rid of PMI, which would make your home costs cheaper without doing a refi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also, are you paying PMI, and has the value of your home changed? If you are paying PMI and your house has appreciated, it might be worth doing an appraisal just to get rid of PMI, which would make your home costs cheaper without doing a refi. I am, and it has: when I bought it the average house sale price here was more like $115,000 than $130,000+. The current loan is held by a credit union that is currently being held in receivership, and is absolutely miserable to deal with for anything at any time for any reason, and I'd not mind getting away from them. They make Bank of America seem pleasant to deal with, in comparison. Part of what I'm eating costs on is that currently my credit is poo poo - due to massive retardation and poor planning and just bad luck (losing clients worth $85k a year in income over the course of two weeks due to their own mismanagement) I ended up filing bankruptcy June 2012. I know the points and 'fees' are related to the fact that my credit is in the 640 range (which surprised me when I looked at it, considering). I'm basically debtless at this point other than the car loan, and some wife's student loans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I'm sorry your credit union sucks to deal with. Without knowing more about your situation: I think your best approach is to do an appraisal and get rid of the PMI immediately. Your loan-to-value should be well past the 80% mark. That will save you monthly costs immediately, although you didn't say how much your PMI was. I'd then also work on rebuilding your credit. Your 2012 bankruptcy means you're going to be paying out the rear end for any kind of refi, and I really question whether lowering the monthly cost by a small amount is worth adding several thousand dollars to your mortgage. Especially if doing so means you can't get rid of PMI. With your points plus the quoted costs, you're paying over $7650 just to reduce your interest rate on $90k by 1 percent per year. And resetting the 30-year clock to do it. The 15 year deal is a little better, paying just under $7k to get your rate lower by over 2 points, but you're also obliging yourself to continue making high payments with the 15-year duration. Let's see if anyone else has a differing opinion, though. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm sorry your credit union sucks to deal with. According to this statement PMI is $650.21 a year, so basically $55/month. I'll contact the loan servicer tomorrow and see what kind of requirements they're going to need to remove that. It didn't appear that USAA was adding PMI to the mortgage in those quotes, though of course, those aren't binding or final.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
cstine posted:According to this statement PMI is $650.21 a year, so basically $55/month. Oh. Well that's not very much money. If an appraisal only costs you $500, that pays for itself in less than a year, though, so still worth doing. USAA might not be including PMI if they're assuming that you're going to do an appraisal anyway (which they may or may not have included in your estimated costs) and also assuming you'll appraise at something under 80% loan-to-value. (If your loan is $90k and your house appraises at $130k, you're at just under 70% LTV, so you shouldn't need PMI.) What you want to be doing is comparing apples-to-apples, though, so you should be comparing your USAA (without owing PMI) quoted monthly cost to your current monthly cost after removing PMI. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
My wife and I are looking to buy a house in a small area between our works in the SF bay area where most of the houses were built in the 40's and are about 1200 sqft with 1 bathroom. Occasionally there are houses that are bigger, but a 1600sqft house with 2 bathrooms might be 30% more expensive than the smaller house, they get bid up a ton and it is hard to get one where someone does not just buy it in cash before offers are being accepted anyway. How feasible is it to buy one of the smaller houses, and remodel it to add a bathroom and another 400-600 or so sqft of useful space? Both in time commitment and in money? I would guess that it would be cheaper to buy a small house and remodel it rather than go for the bigger house, but I also have no idea what I am talking about, so it is just a guess. Most of the lots are 4000-6000 sqft for a rough idea of how much room there is to work with. Pain of Mind fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 17:12
|
|
You are receiving this broadcast as a dream...We are transmitting from the year one nine... nine nine ...You are receiving this broadcast in order t
|
edit - nevermind
GanjamonII fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
In line with the old house/old wiring discussion from the last couple pages... I just went through the house inspection today and found that while the first floor has new romex wiring, the second floor/attic is still knob and tube (it's a converted two-family house with two electrical boxes). The wiring is in good condition, looks like new even, and the ceiling insulation doesn't touch it. It's an old brick house, plaster walls. Does anyone know how much it would cost to rewire, if it's worth rewiring, or if I should just break contract?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
A friend of mine had to deal with a similar situation. He was the seller - he ended up getting the knob and tube replaced as a condition of the sale. I think it only ran him a couple grand, but he had a fairly small upstairs and it was on the same (updated) service as the downstairs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh. Well that's not very much money. If an appraisal only costs you $500, that pays for itself in less than a year, though, so still worth doing. More math: the P&I currently is $520, the P&I on that 15 year is $635, but the amortization shows that the $6k in closing costs is covered in interest savings in just over three years - I paid $4700 a year in interest for 2013, and an amortization calculator for 3.375% and 15 year makes it just over $2700 for year 1. A three-year payback just based on the interest costs, as well as dumping the $650 a year PMI off (my current lender will do so, at the cost of a new appraisal - which I'd have to get either way). This seems absolutely not-stupid, unless I've missed a giant huge obvious 'hey dumbass'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Account for the reduced tax deduction if you're itemizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Account for the reduced tax deduction if you're itemizing. All the business related tax-deductible stuff is handled on the level of the s-corp, not personally, so I never end up over the standard deduction anyways. And, regardless, you don't REMOTELY save $2000 for $2000 in deductions - at my rate it's more like 15%, at most. It adds something like two or three months longer before it's in my favor - not a substantial issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
cstine posted:More math: the P&I currently is $520, the P&I on that 15 year is $635, but the amortization shows that the $6k in closing costs is covered in interest savings in just over three years - I paid $4700 a year in interest for 2013, and an amortization calculator for 3.375% and 15 year makes it just over $2700 for year 1. You should seriously shop around. I feel like $6k in settlement costs sounds absurdly high. I refinanced $90k in January 2013 and it was around $2-3k IIRC. That would make it a no brainer for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
