|
Brennanite posted:A 2000+ sq ft home on 0.1 acres? Does the property exist more than six inches beyond the edges of the house? My parents' house is 1200 sq ft on 0.17 acres and that is the minimum ratio of house to land that should be acceptable. Hahahaha that's cute. Observe: Street View Satellite view 2400 Sq. Ft house on 0.11 acres. We've been inside it...it's nice. But the list price is $319k...it's not that nice. Apparently it's under contract now, so there are people that will buy these things. Slab foundation, shoehorned in, cookie cutter garbage. But people are still buying them up left and right... And believe me, this is not the worst offender. I've seen listings for bigger houses on less land. They're still single family detached, but basically in name only...not even sure you can get a lawn mower between those houses. edit: It's becoming clear that unless we wait forever, that "perfect house" just won't come by. Or when it does, the market around here is so hot that we'll have to put up a boatload of money to even have a chance. So here are the list of things that we're probably going to have to start looking at sooner or later: Longer Commute - Trying to keep to around 30 minutes max. Beyond that is lost time every single day. Smaller Lot - We don't need or want a huge lot, but again I don't want to be crammed in Older Construction - Usually combines with immediate repairs and old appliances, but also needs remodeling if we don't want to get destroyed at resale Cheaper Construction - Usually combines with small lots, potential for expensive repairs down the road Worse schools - No interest in paying for private schools Immediate repairs (roof, HVAC, plumbing, etc) - One time (not really) cost, but big up-front cost means we can't afford as much house Old/dated appliances - Similar to above...could be good in that we buy what we want, but again big up-front cost Of all these things, which would we regret the least/most? DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 17, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
There are a lot of excellent charter schools in the area, just fyi. The school zone thing is less of a big deal than people think. In fact, the good school area is having issues with space so I know there are a few schools which ask you to have lived there for 2 years+ to qualify for just the waitlist and sometimes you just get bussed a billion miles away. It might just be me, but there are SO many parks, greenways, playgrounds, dog parks around the area that the lot thing isn't as big of a deal as it might seem. Some of the houses crammed have well designed interiors so you won't see you neighbors, but still have tons of windows/light. Apex might be a better fit for you if you can handle the commute, but I'm a firm believer in short commutes. There's no reason to waste hours of your life every day if you can avoid it. Take that hour, and drive to the park 5min away and spend it with your family. It'd make you happier. edit gently caress, I might as well weigh in on the rest. Older Construction - Should be priced in, not a big deal if you can handle the extra time, and delay move in for your reno. I'd only be hesitant for the obvious stuff, like old lovely plumbing or knob and tube electrical, or a bunch of other stuff that has much better updated code nowadays than it did back then or just neglect in general. Neglect has more time to do more damage in older construction than new obviously. Cheaper Construction - Depends on how long you plan on staying, the cheap construction still has to pass code and inspection and isn't that big of a deal if it's relatively new and you plan to stay for 5 years or so. Immediate repairs (roof, HVAC, plumbing, etc) - Same as older construction Old/dated appliances - Same as older construction. This is the least I'd worry about, buying new appliances is easy and can be done pretty cheap for quality stuff if you wait for the right sales. I'm pretty sure the cities/counties all have programs to remove/recycle your old stuff and give you credit for it. Rurutia fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Nomatter what you buy, there are going to be compromises. Stuff like appliances and whatnot shouldn't even a consideration, those are cheap and easy to swap out if you don't like them, and no big deal to ignore if they're "dated". I really don't think there's such a thing as a perfect home, there'll always be something to fix, some small detail you don't like. Honestly, to me, that's the big advantage of owning a home, you can roll up your sleeves and customize it to your liking. Really the only thing you can't change is your location, therefore that's the most important thing buying a home. Regarding commutes, I recall hearing some research that people are happiest when they're commute is less than 45 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
My 1188 square foot house has two bathrooms (well, one and three quarters? The master bath has a shower stall but no tub) and three bedrooms. There are fifty or so houses of approximately the same size in my local development, and based on observation, the majority of them house families. They were all built in 1957 and 1958. It's amazing to me how much more space people these days think they "need." Especially couples with no kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's amazing to me how much more space people these days think they "need." Especially couples with no kids. I think the "Well, you don't have kids, you don't need the extra space" generalization is a bad way to go, personally - some people may not have kids, but what about hobbies, pets, electronics, etc.? My wife & I bought a ~1500 sq ft, 3 br place last year - 1 bedroom is ours, 1 is a home office (two PCs, two desks, cat tree, etc.), the last is technically a spare but between the bed, books, and my wife's spinning & weaving stuff, it's full. Living room also has the usual furniture, entertainment center, etc., plus more hobby stuff...basically full also, we'd like to get a good size aquarium, but gonna have to reshuffle and possibly throw a couple things out. Easily could use another room or two, don't have or want kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Those comments are the same people who spend $150 on their wedding reception/car/education and feel the need to tell everyone and circlejerk about it. Bigger houses exist because people want to buy them. If you are OK with something smaller, cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
My house is 4200 sq. ft. and it's big and dumb and I hate it. Don't buy a giant house like I did. I think I'll downgrade in a few years, maybe when we hit the 10 year mark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
It's not about need, but what makes you the most comfortable. My house is between 2000-3000 sqft and I feel like it's perfect for us, and enough to grow into with one kid, but probably not as comfortable for 2 kids. The bottom floor has an extremely large kitchen, a moderately large dining room and an average sized living room in a open space design that is perfect for parties of 5-10 people. Living room is just large enough to have close friends over to watch games and fit a cardio machine. Dining room fits a large square table for board games. Kitchen is wonderful for how much cooking I do, especially when I host. We have 3 bedrooms, and 1 finished attic on the other floors. The guest room was rented out on AirBnB when we didn't have house guests visiting (which we have quite often), and the tiny bedroom that's about to be a nursery was a mini yoga, stretching, body weight area while we had our lifting equipment in the garage. The finished attic is just large enough to serve as a home office for my husband and I with our desktops, and we sometimes host marathon sleep overs in it because we use extremely large bean bags as extra seating for reading, that are big and comfortable enough for multiple people to lounge on when watching TV. The 3.5 baths are a bit excessive though, even though the 3rd full bath is meant to make the finished attic a viable en-suite. It's not the perfect house, but it's pretty perfect for us. Our friends are more of the, hang out together and do stuff at home, drinking wine and beer so we're not paying bar markup, type. So maybe that's where it's different. I also work from home, and my husband does a lot of work when he's home as well so having the largish office space available to make both of us comfortable is valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
I could not ever exist in a home with only one bathroom. Even with just the two of us it's nice to not have to barge in on each other if one of us has to pee while the other is showering or whatever. I have no idea how families with kids all share one bathroom, I'd go insane. There's just the two of us and we currently live in a ~2000 sq ft house. It's a little big for us (it has both a family room and a formal living room and the living room is currently devoid of furniture since we've never lived anywhere with more than one living room before) but our last house was a little too small so it's nice to spread out. As with anything you should get what you can afford, don't destroy yourself financially for something bigger than you need but if it's what you want and it's within your budget go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Aquatic Giraffe posted:only one bathroom
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
We have 3.5 baths for 2 adults and one baby. I still want more.  Also, agreeing with the buy what you feel comfortable with. Some people have tons of poo poo that they wanna have for no reason. As long as you are financially sound, agree that buying a house is a horrible idea, and understand that being a homeowner slowly sucks the life out of you until you're a withering husk, go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Buy a huge house and then fill it with crap to give meaning to your life. Then go rent a storage unit. Live the American dream! Real talk: more than 2000 sq for fewer than four people is a wasteful extravagance (it's okay though, since most things are). quote:Over the last 40 years, the average home has increased in size by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 (earliest year available from Census) to 2,679 square feet last year. Likewise, the median-size home has increased in size by almost 1,000 square feet, from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,491 last year. In percentage terms, the average home size has increased by 61.4% since 1973, while the median home size increased by 63.3%. Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:My family of 4 did this for the first fourteen years of my life. There was a lot of "I know you're in the tub but I gotta take a poo poo". Oh, also, we're all insane now. Now: 3500. Totally ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:It's not about need, but what makes you the most comfortable. My house is between 2000-3000 sqft and I feel like it's perfect for us, and enough to grow into with one kid, but probably not as comfortable for 2 kids. The bottom floor has an extremely large kitchen, a moderately large dining room and an average sized living room in a open space design that is perfect for parties of 5-10 people. Living room is just large enough to have close friends over to watch games and fit a cardio machine. Dining room fits a large square table for board games. Kitchen is wonderful for how much cooking I do, especially when I host. We do all of that with 1500 square feet, but our parties are usually 20+ people. It sounds like your house layout is the same as ours but with bigger rooms. It's probably more cost effective for a developer to build houses with more square footage per room. That's my guess as to why house sizes have exploded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We do all of that with 1500 square feet, but our parties are usually 20+ people. It sounds like your house layout is the same as ours but with bigger rooms. Yes, we enjoy the bigger rooms. That was a big reason why old houses didn't work for us. The rooms are comfortably large, and not excessively so. We can easily fit a king bed in our bedroom without feeling like the walls are closing in on us from three sides (I have mild claustrophobia so that might have to do with it though). I have thrown 20+ parties in this house and couldn't really imagine doing it with a smaller lower floor or finished attic though? I wasn't a huge fan of it because I like being able to fit everyone in one room for dinner or for a huge group activity. Fine for milling around obviously, I end up just doing a lot of apps around each room. I kind of can't imagine sizing down to 1500 and being remotely at same level of comfort. My husband and I (and most of our friends) are relatively small/fit people too, so I don't know. I grew up in less than 1000 sqft between 6+ people depending on which set of relatives was living with us. In downtown Seattle, our 2 bedroom was 900 sqft (with the smallest living room imaginable) and that was fine because we spent the majority of our time out. I have no problem saying I use and love all of the space we have now. Maybe that makes me spoiled or wasteful, I really don't care. edit Interestingly enough, when I was looking for a house, in the beginning we considered 1000-2000 sqft, but all the houses that size that weren't old as gently caress were townhouses that cost the same as our house cost, with a huge monthly HoA to boot. Which is interesting. Rurutia fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
My house is 3000 sq ft, but we have a family of 6. I gotta figure out if I can put the oldest in the basement soon. I will probably buy a 4000 sq ft house in the next 7 years. I figure that as long as I can make the payment and still max 401ks and fund 529s for the kids while throwing cash into liquid savings also, I may as well be comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's probably more cost effective for a developer to build houses with more square footage per room. That's my guess as to why house sizes have exploded. Intuitively, this seems like it should be the case - open space has to be cheaper to build than walls, right? But really, the opposite is closer to the truth; larger open spans mean you need significantly stronger framing to support the structure, and it makes running utilities like plumbing harder. The things we make walls out of, 2x4 studs and drywall, are cheap, and they can be quickly assembled and finished by low cost laborers. Large modern houses have relatively few, larger rooms because of market demands. It is definitely cheaper per square foot to build larger houses, though. There are a lot of expenses that don't scale linearly with square footage (or some times even at all), like sewer hookups, land and surveying costs, driveways, and engineer/architect fees, sales costs. Exterior finishes are relatively expensive and the square cube law means that cost grows more slowly than interior space. At a fixed price per square foot, builders will make much more money off one 3,000 square foot house than two 1,500 square foot houses. This is definitely why you don't see many builders jumping on they tiny house trend; the margins are terrible. But still, they only build large houses because the market is there; if people wanted to buy 1,500 square foot houses and not 3,000 square foot houses, that's what they would build.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Our house is just shy of 2200 sqft. It fits our family of just 2 perfectly fine because we are big on entertaining. So, different strokes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:Intuitively, this seems like it should be the case - open space has to be cheaper to build than walls, right? But really, the opposite is closer to the truth; larger open spans mean you need significantly stronger framing to support the structure, and it makes running utilities like plumbing harder. The things we make walls out of, 2x4 studs and drywall, are cheap, and they can be quickly assembled and finished by low cost laborers. Large modern houses have relatively few, larger rooms because of market demands. I dislike that explanation. If developers only build 3000 square foot houses because the profit margins are higher, is that really indicative of people preferring larger houses? I don't think so. I feel like many buyers are probably prioritizing things like location, layout, and apparent quality over square footage, so you wind up with a biased result when you check to see what size houses people are buying. Consider a small town where all of the houses are 3000 square feet. Would you really say that everyone in that town prefers huge houses, or is it more likely that the people who live there bought whatever was available?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I win the minimalist title in this thread, I think. 860 sq feet and one bathroom. We'll see how we handle it when the kid shows up 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
moana posted:I win the minimalist title in this thread, I think. 860 sq feet and one bathroom. We'll see how we handle it when the kid shows up My dad got bored and rented out his 2500 sqft house on airbnb, now he stays in a shack on the farm. He installed a wood stove he cooks on top of and uses an outhouse. It was -10 f there yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
moana posted:I win the minimalist title in this thread, I think. 860 sq feet and one bathroom. We'll see how we handle it when the kid shows up 415 sq feet, one bathroom(and 0 bedrooms!) Though we're not having children, so it's fine by us. I'm also probably at highest price/sq ft at $737.35
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Harmburger posted:415 sq feet, one bathroom(and 0 bedrooms!) Though we're not having children, so it's fine by us. What the flying gently caress are you living in downtown Hong Kong or something?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
moana posted:I win the minimalist title in this thread, I think. 860 sq feet and one bathroom. We'll see how we handle it when the kid shows up I live in a 1000 SF 2 bed / 2 bath and I'm honestly scared thinking about going bigger. My parents live all alone in a 4000 SF house and they're slaves to cleaning and dusting. And buying tons of furniture to fill empty space. We probably spend an hour a month cleaning. And we constantly get rid of clothes, unused appliances, and things we don't love. When our kids come, we're going to hold onto a small space as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
So my wife and I relocated for a job and we are now house hunting. We've found one we like a lot, but I have some concerns: It is the biggest and most expensive house in the neighborhood. It is 2,650 square feet, but is only a 3/2. The previous owners made a very large upstairs addition that amounts to one very large playroom and a bedroom. While it is not the only waterfront house in the neighborhood, it is the only one that is right next to the water, and has a fantastic deck that juts out over the lake. The house is painted well inside, however it could use some updating - it has formica countertops (not necessarily a bad thing) and lineoleum flooring in the kitchen. The formal living room has real hardwood though, and that's a plus. The house can probably be had for around $225k (They are asking $240 but it has been on the market for about 90 days). The rest of the houses in the neighborhood are approximately 1500 - 1800 square feet, and go for 150 - 190, depending on their location and distance from the water. The neighborhood is centrally located in a very nice suburb with very good schools and next to zero crime. Would we be making a huge mistake? I've always heard not to buy the biggest/most expensive house in a neighborhood, and I do realize that any improvements we make won't be investments, but would go to making sure we could get our money out of it when we sell in 8 - 10 years. However, it is a really great house, and I can't stress how awesome that deck is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Adiabatic posted:What the flying gently caress are you living in downtown Hong Kong or something?! In a very convenient neighborhood in Honolulu. Weather's great, 5 min walk from the beach, nice view of the mountains(and if I stand in the corner of the balcony I can see the ocean).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
-S- posted:So my wife and I relocated for a job and we are now house hunting. We've found one we like a lot, but I have some concerns: What you are saying sounds like you are worried about "buying the cheapest house on the block" - don't. Worry about falling in love with a house, and worry about why no one else built houses right next to the lake, and worry about if the deck was permitted, and worry about the water damage they just painted over, and your insurance costs in a flood zone!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Bozart posted:What you are saying sounds like you are worried about "buying the cheapest house on the block" - don't. Worry about falling in love with a house, and worry about why no one else built houses right next to the lake, and worry about if the deck was permitted, and worry about the water damage they just painted over, and your insurance costs in a flood zone! All of that has checked out. It's not in a flood zone, the house and all are well above high water (we're not flood prone here, anyway). Literally everything structural about the house checks out. It's just 50% bigger and 20% more expensive than the rest of the neighborhood - they built the square footage of the house up, but in the wrong way in terms of adding value (in my eyes).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
But for real that deck tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Where's the lake?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Hah, that's the edge of it. It goes out to the left a good ways, also that picture was taken at the height of a severe drought we had this summer. It really is a lake and not a tiny pond
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
-S- posted:But for real that deck tho You know this means that you're going to have to get a boat, right? And then you can experience hemorrhaging money from two endless money pits!... says the very jealous landlocked Midwestern goon Have you gotten pre-approved for a mortgage yet? One of my co-workers was looking at houses with her realtor and about to put an offer on one when I asked her if she'd been pre-approved, which is completely different than pre-qualified, though banks don't exactly make that distinction very clear. Turns out the same loan officer that was happily telling them they were qualified to borrow X mortgage was also happy to break the news that they didn't actually qualify to loan them anything. E: Regarding buying the most expensive house on the block--I did that and in less than a year zillow's estimate for the property has essentially erased my 20% down payment by arbitrarily lowering the home value. Which, I understand isn't a firm assessment, but it's what buyers are using and will base offers on, so just let that be a cautionary tale. Years of saving, gone for absolutely no reason other than some algorithm on a house buying website. Granted, I'm not planning on selling anytime soon, but it's awfully discouraging to almost be underwater this side of the recession Catatron Prime fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Zillow posted:this property was last sold for $386,000 in 2014 and currently has an estimated value of $457,665 edit: and that's just my friend's house. There are plenty with higher % jumps
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:This market is stupid Don't worry, that's totally sustainable!!! Buy all the houses you can!!!! GO GO GO!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:This market is stupid Where is this? Did they do any renovations to it to justify the jump or is it literally just the same house with a higher $/sf?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Harmburger posted:In a very convenient neighborhood in Honolulu. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Oops, that quote was from realtor.com not zillow. I don't think zillow provides the estimates for houses not on the market the way realtor does. This is in a suburb of Denver. They haven't done anything to the house other than hold on to it. Random house in a nearby neighborhood: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Update: This is the e-mail I got from my original lender after I confronted him with a better Loan Estimate from a competitor: "I have requested another concession from our pricing desk but have not heard back yet. I don’t understand the continuous shopping I beat Quicken’s deal and locked you in so I thought I had a commitment from you. Also, I would like to point out that internet lender’s are often bait & switch. I would be very skeptical." Do Never Trust or Buy
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Uh, dude, he thought he had a commitment from you. What are you, some kind of commitment-phobe? Sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Deathwing posted:I think the "Well, you don't have kids, you don't need the extra space" generalization is a bad way to go, personally - some people may not have kids, but what about hobbies, pets, electronics, etc.? My wife and I bought our 1188 square foot house six years ago. We have no kids, and don't want them. And we've totally filled our house with our hobbies and cats and books and all manner of crap. We'd be delighted to have more space, and when we can afford it, we will probably move up. That's fine. I'm not suggesting more space isn't nice. If you can afford it, and you want it, fine. But gently caress no, we don't neeeeed it. I'm reacting to how often I see people, sometimes in this thread, behaving as though literally their only option in life is to spend way too much money, going into crippling debt, taking a huge risk with their finances, and so on to buy a huge house because they have two kids and so they absolutely have to have a 4bd, 2ba 2500 square foot house with a two car garage and a yard. They "need" it, and make serious concessions to their other life priorities to get it. No. What you "need" is shelter, clean water, sanitation, and depending on climate, possibly a heat source. You can make a strong economic argument for kitchen facilities, and a weaker economic argument for laundry facilities. Everything else is luxury, quality of life improvement, space and facility to pursue your interests and accumulate your belongings and increase your capacity for guests and entertainment options etc. etc. These are conveniences, they are not "needs," and it bears reminding occasionally, especially in the context of providing advice to people shopping for houses, that pretty much everyone who isn't an American or an Australian somehow survives in a lot less space. Including lots of developed, similarly-wealthy countries with similarly-high average quality of life metrics. sources: http://dornob.com/how-much-is-enough-average-home-sizes-around-the-world/ http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/fun-at-home/news/a7654/house-sizes-around-the-world/ http://notbuyinganything.blogspot.com/2012/03/average-house-size-by-country.html Based on multiple sources, the average newly built UK house seems to be around 800 ft2 (76 m2). Americans work too hard, take too little vacation, spent too little time raising their own children, don't save enough money for retirement, and - I'll argue - probably spend too much on housing expenses for spaces larger than they need, which represents a sacrifice, directly or indirectly, of all of the other items on the list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:37
|
|