We pretty much have to make a decision by this morning as to which way we want to go. I'll give you the choices and tell me what you'd do:
House #1: Older, cuter, very charming. Built in 1969 but with many upgrades (vinyl siding, entirely new roof, etc.). It's smaller... a little over 1100 sq. ft. but nothing we can't deal with. The neighborhood is very quiet and established with huge trees, bigger lots (more yard space), etc. Problem is that the house is going to need some work. It needs insulation in the attic, the kitchen needs some remodeling, a few electrical repairs (seller is paying for the major ones), etc. It will require a pretty good investment of time and money, which will be tough since we're saving for a wedding and have college homework eating up a lot of spare time.
House #2: Brand new (not even completely built yet). It's much larger, coming it at almost 1700 sq. ft. and having a lot nicer interior. The neighborhood is very "cookie-cutter", with small lots and very few trees. Thankfully it is not in the suburbs but is a new development located well within the city limits, so it's not any further away from our jobs than House #1. There definitely is no "character" or "charm" to the neighborhood yet, though. We would not need to spend any money at all fixing it up since it's brand new. It is also built to "Green Building" standards, meaning that it's extremely energy efficient (low electric bill) and insurance will be cheaper since it's made of "hardy plank" siding which is 90% concrete (no termites, doesn't burn). The bad thing is that the neighborhood is located adjacent to railroad tracks, so there are noisy trains blasting through every 30 minutes or so.
So, what would you do? Go with the one that's charming and "warm", or go with the cookie-cutter neighborhood where everything looks the same, but you get more house and everything is brand spankin' new? Keep in mind that the mortgage payment will be EXACTLY the same on these two homes (almost to the dollar).
You opinions are appreciated!
House #1: Older, cuter, very charming. Built in 1969 but with many upgrades (vinyl siding, entirely new roof, etc.). It's smaller... a little over 1100 sq. ft. but nothing we can't deal with. The neighborhood is very quiet and established with huge trees, bigger lots (more yard space), etc. Problem is that the house is going to need some work. It needs insulation in the attic, the kitchen needs some remodeling, a few electrical repairs (seller is paying for the major ones), etc. It will require a pretty good investment of time and money, which will be tough since we're saving for a wedding and have college homework eating up a lot of spare time.
House #2: Brand new (not even completely built yet). It's much larger, coming it at almost 1700 sq. ft. and having a lot nicer interior. The neighborhood is very "cookie-cutter", with small lots and very few trees. Thankfully it is not in the suburbs but is a new development located well within the city limits, so it's not any further away from our jobs than House #1. There definitely is no "character" or "charm" to the neighborhood yet, though. We would not need to spend any money at all fixing it up since it's brand new. It is also built to "Green Building" standards, meaning that it's extremely energy efficient (low electric bill) and insurance will be cheaper since it's made of "hardy plank" siding which is 90% concrete (no termites, doesn't burn). The bad thing is that the neighborhood is located adjacent to railroad tracks, so there are noisy trains blasting through every 30 minutes or so.
So, what would you do? Go with the one that's charming and "warm", or go with the cookie-cutter neighborhood where everything looks the same, but you get more house and everything is brand spankin' new? Keep in mind that the mortgage payment will be EXACTLY the same on these two homes (almost to the dollar).
You opinions are appreciated!
Facebook
Twitter