|
Someone tell me I'm stupid so I can just beat this idea out of my head and move on with my life: Right now I make $47k a year, my fiancée is about to start a year long position with Americorp, and that pays at the poverty line, so I think around $13000. Some friends of ours recently closed on a condo in an amazing building, and I found a unit that I would love for $269,000. I have $16,000 in credit debt, $16,000 in student loan debt, and no savings (well, I might have a few thousand in a mutual fund, I haven't seen it in a few years). I've only had my job for six months, but I know I'll have it for quite a while. My mom has pretty much rock solid credit, and I know I could at least get her to cosign (is that even something I could do with a mortgage?), or possibly help somehow with down payment. Am I basically screwed in this post crash market without a down payment? I'll most likely be getting raises as time goes on, and the fiancée will probably be able to find a position that pays $15,000 - $20,000 after her year long thing goes away. Also, since this is a condo, association fees are $531 for this unit, and that doesn't include electricity, internet, or TV (although does include heat and A/C). Basically, I know this is a bad idea, but I hate my current apartment $750/month (I live with the fiancée right now, btw) and I would love to move into this building. As a compromise, would my odds be any better if I look at units in the $100,000 - $150,000 range? There are a bunch of those, which are smaller, so I'd probably only be able to stay there 5-7 years, whereas the larger unit would most likely be good for 10-infinity years, depending on how many kids we have. Another point in my favor is that I think this unit is way under priced (although I could be wrong, is there an easy way for me to see what other units in that building/area closed for recently?
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Arzakon posted:I'll try not to be too harsh. The 100-150K units are 1 bedroom, the more expensive one has 2 bedrooms. Also I would buy it because it's where I want to live, not because I think I would save money over renting or because it's not the only thing available. Yes, that association fee is monthly, and yes, my payments would be well over $2000. All reasons that it's a bad idea. And finally, single family homes aren't the be all end of desirable housing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
So let's talk about condos vs renting. First off, for my situation, a SFH isn't an option (I just don't want it). When making the rent vs buy comparison, is there anything else I should be taking to account that the rent/buy calc linked in the OP isn't telling me (I found a spot to put in the HOA fee). And owning a condo also eliminates some of the negatives of home buying (exterior maintenance, major repair bills, etc). I've gotten over being an idiot, but this is still something I'll be pursuing in the future, so I'd like to know what you guys think. Also, not for me, but for my mom, I'm assuming most of these concerns go out the window when buying in cash (aka no mortgage).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A condo can also be the only affordable way to buy property, in an inner-city situation where SFHs just don't exist, or cost half a million dollars or more. If you absolutely must live downtown, and you're ready to buy, a condo can work. This is the case right here. I don't want a SFH because they don't exist in the places I want to be living. As for the HOA. That helps take the "shock" out of any major home repairs, as well as (in most cases) providing some useful amenities. The building in particular I was looking at includes a nice fitness center, party rooms, huge rooftop patio with grills, etc. Some of that stuff I'd be paying for myself otherwise. To be honest, I wish there was no mortgage interest tax credit, then none of this would be a problem. Condo prices would be pushed down to a point where they didn't make any sense to build, and all the nice buildings would stop converting from rentals to owner-occupied. I also wish the government would stop subsidizing SFH and suburbanization. But that's really more of a discussion for D&D, so I'll keep it out of here. I'm looking for a place to live that I will love, so I want to be able to do that as cheaply as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that, over time, condos are depreciating assets? I couldn't find much in terms of comparisons, but case-shiller does condo indices too, and condo values seem to track home values pretty well, at least in the one comparision chart I found: Like I said, this can quickly turn into a D&D discussion. Urbanists like myself believe (and this is in some way backed up by trends in housing price decline) that in the long term denser, more walkable properties are going to become more valuable. A SFH in 30 minutes away from the central city surrounded by acres of parking lots is going to have a hard time rebounding. Some of these far flung places can survive if the increase transit to the central city, and emphasize a community design that, if not encouraging walking, at least stops discouraging it. A common phrase I've heard in my metro area is "drive 'til you qualify." That is, start in the center, and go out until home prices are low enough that you can afford it. But that fails to take into account transportation costs. When gas was $1 a gallon, it didn't matter much. When gas is $3 a gallon it starts to matter. When gas is $5 a gallon it really matters. Looking at housing costs in a vacuum is a bad idea, you should be considering housing+transportation, because that gives you the true cost of your living decisions. If I live in the central city, my family only needs one car. That leads to an annual savings of $8000-10000 from numbers I've seen, and that's not pocket change. I can go on and on and on about these kinds of things, but it boils down to this: condo prices in the central city aren't falling as fast as SFH, especially compared to SFHs on the periphary. You can see it in the link gvibes posted. I know it's true in my local market. Were it not for the credit crunch, there would be countless condo buildings going up right now. There is still a demand for these properties, even in this market. There will continue to be demand for these properties.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
sanchez posted:What if you own a Chevrolet Volt? Electric cars can void the gas prices killing suburbs argument. Time is the real deal breaker, and commute time can be very weird when comparing transit vs car, it really depends on individual circumstances and if there is a decent metro system around. That's true. There's two ways to look at this: high oil prices will cause are cars to be powered differently, or high oil prices will cause us to reevaluate our auto oriented lifestyle. The problem with the first one is that if I live 30 miles away from Downtown and buy a Volt to get to work, so does everybody else. As you've said, there's still the time component. I'm not sure if there's a good, sustainable solution to the traffic problem that doesn't involve more intense concentration of employment in the core. That makes all sorts of stuff like dense central living, peak transit options for the suburbs, and carpooling and such for the exurbs. People are starting to realize that they enjoy an urbanist, walkable lifestyle (which is quite possible in the suburbs, if properly built), and once the economy in general recovers, we're going to see that trend in home prices (by ways of multi unit housing and small SFH in the city becoming more desirable, along with the far fling suburbs and exurbs basically never recovering. We're already seeing this in California, where some of the far off burbs an hour or two away from the big cities are basically being written off as worthless, and residents being encouraged (at least by people here) to just cut your losses and get out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:When I refer to a condo as a depreciating asset, I am not talking about its market value, which will go up or down according to many factors including (especially) supply and demand. A building can't be torn down until everybody is bought out, so you're not suddenly out your investment when the owners decide to build a space needle or something. It's also not a very useful point to make, because as far as most people are concerned, the house is durable enough for the few years they'll be there. And since nobody here is buying this as an investment, who ares. It's got walls and a roof. If it's buried in the ground or 500 feet in the air doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
Yeah, this can go either way. The market has ended up doing some crazy things that don't really make sense, so the original owners could have gone bankrupt for stupid reasons. Or there could be serious problems with the building. This happened to a building around here. They were selling the building with parking spots, but they hadn't built the parking structure yet, so they were paying a valet to park the cars a couple blocks away. They were going to pay for the parking garage with proceeds from sales of the units. Prices went down, and all of a sudden you've got a bankrupt management company, no parking spaces, and all these units that paid an extra $20,000 for a parking space.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Also, condos will have association fees. In one building I was looking at association fees were way more than what a mortgage payment would be. (And they don't allow pets? What the hell is that poo poo?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Eh, I live in a condo building that allows pets, and I think the pet thing is understandable. There is just always that rear end in a top hat owner whose dog shits in the elevator or whatever, and doesn't clean it up. I just want a catte  For a pet that would stay in the unit the whole time I'm not sure what the problem would be, or how they would find out, or what they could do to me if they did. What kind of punishment is there for breaking the rules in a housing association?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
Both the buyer's Realtor and seller's Realtor take a commission, probably around 3% each. So unless you sell it to somebody who isn't using a Realtor to buy, there will still be a 3% commission.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
Ledneh posted:On another subject, and I know this isn't the right thread for it but there doesn't seem to be one... any recommended sites for rental hunting, apartment, condo, house, or otherwise? I would love a renter's thread. I'd make one if I had any idea what to put in the OP...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but in the house vs condo thing, you also have to look at transportation costs as part of your cost of living. I live a 15-20 minute walk/15 minute bus ride/5-10 minute bike ride away from where I live (rent) now. I'll probably buy in this same neighborhood, or the same (non driving) distance away. I pay $70 per month for my bus pass, and it would be nearly twice that for a parking permit, not to mention the wear and tear on my car, gas, and the opportunity cost of time spent wasted driving to work when I can be reading and getting ready for the day on the bus. When I do drive, I drive 3/4 of a mile to the grocery store, rather than 5-10. My car is an old beater that's totally paid off, I pay $400 a year in insurance, why would I want to run to the suburbs for a big house when I'd have to pay so much more to get anywhere. Also keep in mind that housing in the core has dropped much less than that of the suburbs/exurbs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Building new has a ton of variables. The first and one of the largest is land. You can spend 15K on a small lot outside of town, or a prime lot in a good part of town can go for 300K. Location matters. On the other hand, you could get labor pretty cheaply depending on your market, and if you put in some sweat equity you can put a lot more value into the home yourself. There are just too many variables. Only in crazy markets like NYC where construction costs are so much lower than retail pricing is there any way to say clearly which is a better deal (but in NYC you need to build a 40 story tower, so that doesn't really apply to you).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
senor punk posted:Have you been able to come up with any numbers to get a comparison of what it would cost to rent (comfortably or not) versus the potential costs of ownership for those few years (without even factoring in trying to sell it when ready)? I think she's saying that the rental options suck, so they're almost stuck buying. Would it make sense to buy and then rent it out when you move away?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:It kills me that out of the entire real estate transaction process people always point out the inspection as something they don't want to pay for. I've seen enough poo poo on Holmes Inspection to be pretty  at the whole inspection process, I'll have to bring my Dad who really knows his poo poo, and Uncle who works in construction to take a look at whatever I plan to buy in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
eddiewalker posted:An inspection report is a lot easier to negotiate with than, "my dad says it needs a roof," no matter what you think of the inspection process. I mean more along the lines of I wouldn't really trust any inspector unless I knew a bunch about them. I'd use family as a supplement, not a replacement, and then if there was some bad poo poo I'd bring back an inspector and say "Hey, look at this." E: Has anyone seen this show? Basically some people buy a house, get an inspection that says all is well, then there's all sorts of problems, and then Mike Holmes comes in and does a couple hundred thousand dollars of repairs, very often structural. Maybe just another reason to DO NEVER BUY. One of them was so bad they were debating if they should gut to the studs or just tear down and rebuild. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
The best shows on HGTV in the US are Canadian  .Mike Holmes is a pretty sweet guy, he has actually three shows: Holmes on Homes, an older show where he would come in and fix contractor's gently caress ups. He had a show in New Orleans where he did the same where homeowners had been preyed upon by disreputable contractors. Holmes Inspection is a show where he comes into homes that were purchased with a clean home inspection, and then turn out to have problems the inspector should have caught. The last episode I watched the inspector missed termites, and in fixing that revealed the house was built on dirt and likely to collapse. That was $100k-$150k to fix (Either the show pays for the renovations or his charity does, haven't been able to figure it out). In another episode, they had to rip it down to the studs, and if they hadn't the ceiling was going to collapse (it already sagged a couple of inches, idiots pulled out all the walls on the main floor and didn't properly reinforce the ceiling). Now I'm quite sure these cases are incredibly atypical, but they definitely mean you should make sure to get a good inspection, especially if the house is recently renovated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
roadhead posted:You're half-way there, so 'Hump Check'? I don't think it actually means halfway. I remember once upon a time when I ran some calculations with different interest rates that if they were really low that point could happen within a few years of a 30 year mortgage.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
zelah posted:That's why I'm renting in a condo building that barely sold any units and had to convert to rentals. I can put whatever holes in walls I want and I got brand new appliances all over and a balcony and don't have to live out in the suburbs to afford these things. I'm excited because almost all new development downtown is rental, because rental construction is apparently easier to finance in this economy. That being said, I really feel like I should start some kind of rental thread. As for "pride of ownership" I'm really proud of what I've done to my apartment. Paint on the walls and a new shower head and I'm in heaven.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
HOAs are loving ridiculous, I hope that lovely gazebo are pool at the front gate is worth it.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
I think we're confused why they're going into foreclosure if the house is worth more than they owe. Foreclosures are slow, so they should have had plenty of time to do a conventional sale.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Just helped some friends move into a house. One guy's buying it, and 4 other people are going to be roommates for a while until he's ready to move onto the next phase of his life in the house. It's an old house. Three bedrooms are upstairs. The staircase is positioned such that you can't get a queen mattress up the stairs. Houses should deprecate like cars, so after 20-40 years we can just tear this poo poo down without remorse, because it's almost completely unlivable in this day.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:Seriously? You'd tear down a perfectly livable area because of silly little issues like that? This house, yeah I would. There's only one bedroom downstairs. If you can't get any furniture upstairs, that's a bit of a problem. Maybe it could be creatively renovated in some way, but this is just not a good house. Staircases should be wonder than 2.5 feet. he had to return his washer because it was too wide to fit down the stairs into the basement. It has really small rooms, which I actually like, it just fails miserably at being very livable. Bozart posted:This isn't true at all. I realize this would be bad if it were actually the case, but I don't know what could be done with this house that doesn't involve somebody taking a huge financial hit and tearing down something worth $150k (big city prices). I can't even imagine how you'd get anything at all up these stairs, no matter how small it is. There might have also been some fishy renovations going on because the "dining room" used to be a bedroom and I don't know what else has happened. If it were me I'd run as far away as possible, but oh well. I hope he doesn't find out in 3 years that the house is about to collapse because of shoddy renovations. The garage was modified with a bump at the end so the hood of a longer car could fit, but I don't think they properly supported the wall, they've got most of one end of a hip roof supported on a single 2x4 laid flat, which is itself supported by 1 2x4 on each end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
I'm not considering this, just curious, but is an ARM in any way appropriate in a situation where you expect your future income to be higher than it is now, and thus future you can afford a higher payment, but right now you can't. Obviously that's a bit of a gamble either way, but I'm just curious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Shipon posted:Why would you even do this? For that matter, why would any bank allow you to do this? I'm years away from buying, if ever, and have no plans on doing this, I'm just curious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
So If you were to pay off an ARM over 30 years, you would probably pay less over the initial period when you lock in a low rate, and then pay more over the course of the rest of the loan. You could also, in theory, after that initial period, refinance into a fixed loan if you have the equity, locking in a lower rate than your fluctuating rate, and (if you refinance to 30 years for sure, and maybe even if you refinance into a 15 year, depending on rates) a lower payment than you had before, though it will be over 30 years instead of the 25-23 years you had left on your ARM. Or you could do like nelson does, get a low rate at the front, prepay the poo poo out of it, and then have tiny minimum payments every year, just in case you get in a short term bind. Am I leaving anything out/wrong about that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Hell, when I was 20, just renting an apartment with my best friend for 6 months was enough to ruin the friendship. We didn't talk for like 2 years after that. I can't imagine how horrible it would have been if we bought a house. I lived with two other guys for three years after meeting them in college (one was my roommate, another lived in my hall) and now they're both in my wedding (the roommate being my best man). Apparently my situation is pretty unique?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Ingraman posted:As for lost investment, this is separate cash that wouldn't be used for investing anyways. Why not? If you're going to tie it up in a house for five years you obviously don't care about liquidity. Opportunity cost, look it up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Shared wall save energy not because of lack of insulation, but because you're not trying to heat up a cold exterior wall. The wall is already warm from what your neighbors are doing, so your not fighting such extremes. And I think we've figured out how to make successful multi-tenant buildings, this noise thing is really only valid in buildings built in the 60s or something. We've figured out to sound isolate a unit, we live in the future. I'm pretty tired of all the condo hate in this thread for no reason other than "I don't want to live in one because I lived in a 50 year old apartment building and it sucked and also it doesn't perfectly fit my lifestyle so it can't possibly fit anybody else's."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:Are there any good resources for trying to sell a home on my own? I'd rather save the 7% and am willing to do the legwork for myself. A bonus is that I can basically leave work at short notice to show the house if someone is interested. First, you'd only be saving half that commission, because it gets split between buying agent and selling agent. I know there are some real estate companies that will charge you $1000 for some MLS stuff and then let you do the work, and let you take the seller's commission.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
I have some friends that lived in a 25 story apartment -> condo conversion and he had zero sound problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
alreadybeen posted:The thing is it is easy to rent an apartment similar to a condo. You can find nice, upscale rentals in most areas with condos. Sometimes even the exact same condos if an owner is renting out their condo. As for your points: In some markets it's not possible to find the same lifestyle as a condo in an apartment, though the market is shifting now and new properties coming online are rentals and not condos. And you can do structural changes to a condo, my friends knocked out a kitchen wall and put a laundry room off the bathroom in their unit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Something else to be said about condos, most of them don't let you work on your car. I live in an apartment and can do some stuff but a condo I think would be riskier what with having a HOA. There's a place here that charges you to use their garage space and tools. Of course there's no way in hell I'm ever doing anything to my own car, so that doesn't matter. I'd much rather just not have a car.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:We may have figured out how to sound isolate a unit, but we aren't doing it. To be honest, I wouldn't trust anything stick built without doing some actual testing and talking to neighborhoods, or seeing how the building was actually built. An older brick building, or a newer poured concrete building (which means 5+ stories) I'd trust a lot more. Basically, masonry and cement are way better than wood. It's possible to do with wood, but I'm guessing most people don't go through the effort to do it right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
TheShineNSB posted:Unfortunately, standard homeowners insurance policies don't cover earthquake damage without the earthquake endorsement. Even an open perils policy (aka "all risk," a term that I hate and always clarify with my customers) specifically excludes it. Look for "Earth movement" in the Exclusions part of Section 1. If you let me know what policy form she has (in the corner of the page, most likely starts with "HO") then I point you toward the language. Why is it that a typical home owners policy doesn't cover stuff like that or flood damage? Shouldn't the insurance company be able to figure out that an area is at risk for disasters X, Y, and Z, and price accordingly?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
sheri posted:Because things like earthquakes and floods, when they do happen, affect a lot of people and are very expensive. So, if you want to ensure you are covered for that, you have to purchase a separate rider for your insurance. If homeowner's policies did cover that as a standard thing, everyone would be paying much, much more than they are now for homeowners insurance. Yeah, but if it does happen, and the homeowner hasn't gotten that coverage, they're hosed. So shouldn't we be really sure that everybody has coverage for these huge catastrophic disasters. Is flood and earthquake insurance subsidized by the government? I see the Federal government is involved in flood, and the state of California has their hand in earthquake insurance there. I can't tell if the government provides a subsidy to the flood program or not, and California says it doesn't contribute any money. So if it can pay for itself as is, why not make everybody pay for it with their homeowners policy?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yes, it depends on where you came from and where you move to, but as a general rule, a modern apartment is going to be cheaper on the utilities than a modern SFH. This is often because some utilities are subsidized or incorporated into rent as well. Also you're not heating/cooling as many exterior walls, which helps a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:IKEA does installs, although maybe they subcontract that part. They actually have an online tool I've been playing with that lets you lay out the whole shebang, pick cabinets and appliences and tile and etc. etc., and then dumps it all out to plans & pricing. Then you go in to a store, chat with a consultant, and I guess at that point they estimate the labor costs and you get a total price. The Ikea brand counter tops are pretty bad, they don't have corner pieces, so you just bump the front of one counter against the end of another, and there's a weird plastic piece that goes in between. I'm not sure if Ikea offers custom made laminate counters (mine has a bunch of granite and stuff), but if they don't go to a Home Depot or something and get them there. You'll spend a bit more, but they'll be a lot nicer. As for Ikea cabinets, that poo poo is dead simple to put up,I've done it myself with my dad. You have to buy a metal rail for the upper cabinets, and then they all hook into and attach to that, rather than the wall. That means you don't have to worry about studs so much. The bottoms are also easy because they have legs you adjust individually. The hardest part of the base cabinets would be mitering the toe kick so it looks nice when you snap it onto the bases. My dad also put quarter-around all around the toe kick to tie it into the rest of the molding. Putting on counters can be a bit tricky, depending on how straight your wall is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
I nice thing about Ikea is you can pretty easily "reface" your cabinets by just swapping in new doors.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 21:49
|
|