I had a similar choice and I picked #2 
So what if I'm pissed at the condo association, I made a lot more $ and have no repair hassles!
So what if I'm pissed at the condo association, I made a lot more $ and have no repair hassles!
theknight571
Platinum Member
- Mar 23, 2001
- 2,896
- 2
- 81
You gotta be careful with these newer houses in the cookie cutter neighborhoods.
A friend of mine bought one of these houses, and in the first 3 months a pipe burst, had to redo the drywall in one of the rooms (not affected by the burst pipe), the dish washer leaked, some tiles in the foyer cracked, there was a leak in the basement wall (no visible crack though...just a wet wall) and there was an electircal circuit that would flip the breaker if anything was plugged into it. I think there was more, but that's all I can remember at the moment.
The builder fixed it all, but it was a PITA getting them to do it.
Also...beware of the "association".
My firend's "association" rules do not allow him to have a fence, plant certain types of trees, put up a basketball backboard/hoop, etc.
He is also required to pay annual dues, which go for plowing the streets in the winter, trash pickup, maintenance of the common areas etc.
Some of the older neighborhoods have these too I would assume, so it wouldn't hurt to check for these "assoications" in both places.
- TK
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,547
- 20,262
- 146
That really depends on how close they are. If they are a few blocks away and buffered by other homes, it's no problem.
Do the trains run at night? Is the 30 minute schedule an exaggeration? Is this a silent zone where they are forbidden to blow their horns?
I live less than a quarter mile from tracks. The main line between St Louis and Chicago. The trains are forbidden to blow their horns here, and the buffer of homes between me and the tracks means I only hear a slight rumble if the house is VERY quiet.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
We had a similar choice and went with #1. Finding a house that needs some minor repair is like finding money on the street. Working on your house is fun and profittable. We also have a decent sized back yard where we have some fruit trees and an herb garden and our kids can run around all they want.
Also, keep in mind, if #2 is in a new construction project, that the home you get for the base price will have totally cheap materials for everything from the carpet to the cabinets.....all that pretty stuff in the models are upgrades they'll overcharge you 400% for.
That said, the real factor is location. Which has a better location?
Also, keep in mind, if #2 is in a new construction project, that the home you get for the base price will have totally cheap materials for everything from the carpet to the cabinets.....all that pretty stuff in the models are upgrades they'll overcharge you 400% for.
That said, the real factor is location. Which has a better location?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I'm guessing the 4+ walls & a roof style.
Personally, I'd prefer a mid to late craftsman renaissance house, but a neo-contemporary with early victorian accents would do fine too. Nothing like a house with bad style......all the other houses will laugh at it.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
As has been beat to death, it really comes down to location and the development going up around each property.
As much as I don't want to live in a cookie cutter neighborhood, I can't deny their appeal and ability to be bought & sold quickly. Younger buyers typically flock to these types of neighborhoods won over buy larger floor plans and the amenities that are close by. In these developments there are typically small stripmalls and retail locations that are much more accessible than what older, more mature neighborhoods can provide.
Younger buyers typically aren't buying these homes to live in them forever. They are a 3-5 year purchase that is simply replacing rent for the time being until they move up in their careers and buy a bigger home in a more aloof area.
In the areas I've lived in, and shopped around in, the turn around time on sales for these homes is much quicker than older homes.
Yes the quality isn't as good. But you can't deny the allure of 50%-100% more square footage and better laid out floor plans.
Older homes are smaller, have smaller rooms, and harder to work with living spaces.
The newer developments are just a lot more desireable to young buyers who aren't planning on being there long term.
As much as I don't want to live in a cookie cutter neighborhood, I can't deny their appeal and ability to be bought & sold quickly. Younger buyers typically flock to these types of neighborhoods won over buy larger floor plans and the amenities that are close by. In these developments there are typically small stripmalls and retail locations that are much more accessible than what older, more mature neighborhoods can provide.
Younger buyers typically aren't buying these homes to live in them forever. They are a 3-5 year purchase that is simply replacing rent for the time being until they move up in their careers and buy a bigger home in a more aloof area.
In the areas I've lived in, and shopped around in, the turn around time on sales for these homes is much quicker than older homes.
Yes the quality isn't as good. But you can't deny the allure of 50%-100% more square footage and better laid out floor plans.
Older homes are smaller, have smaller rooms, and harder to work with living spaces.
The newer developments are just a lot more desireable to young buyers who aren't planning on being there long term.
A hilk, so funny
.He posted pictures of a ranch, but mentions nothing of the new house. Is it one or two story. If it's a new dev it's goign to be either a ranch, transitional, contemporary, 2 story (colonial, usually center hall).
I think the saying goes, "Buy the worst house in the best neighborhood". That way you have a good return on investment. If you bought a mansion for cheap in the ghetto, I doubt many rich people would want to live in a ghetto even if the house is nice. But fix up a house that needs repairs in a nice neighborhood, and a lot of people would want to live there.
The neighborhood in #1 sounds much, much nicer. Go for #1, it's a no-brainer.
The neighborhood in #1 sounds much, much nicer. Go for #1, it's a no-brainer.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Those are not necessarily bad things. It ensures you have no neighbour who parks on the lawn, and here in the south that's a very real possiblity. Actually one of mine does in a cul-de-sac, kind of hidden from the road. If I was his neighbour I'd probably complain and make him start parking off the lawn, because it's kind of lame, but hey
radioouman
Diamond Member
- Nov 4, 2002
- 8,632
- 0
- 0
I enjoy the money savings in utility bills of the newer house. I own one that was built in 1975, but it is quite modern in layout, appearance, and energy usage. We have lots of large trees which shades a good portion of the house and helps even more with energy efficiency in the summer.
One thing to consider is tht if you think that you'll need to sell the house soon, brand new houses drop in value for the first few years, then they rebound. Older houses go up in value a small amount every year.
Also, 1100 square feet compared to 1700 sq feet? That is a no brainer..
One thing to consider is tht if you think that you'll need to sell the house soon, brand new houses drop in value for the first few years, then they rebound. Older houses go up in value a small amount every year.
Also, 1100 square feet compared to 1700 sq feet? That is a no brainer..
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I think quality of life is the most important criteria. For me personally, I prefer more space and quiet. Railroad tracks, small lots, etc. would lower my quality of life. The repairs you mention for house 1 are minor and would take only a couple of weekends of spare time, compared to the many years you'd live. However, house 1 is smaller. But, if the space in the house is more than adequate for your needs, I'd go with house #1.
Of course, I'd expect a large percentage of people in here to choose house #2, simply because it's my perception that many of the people here live in crowded areas and are used to them. As far as having old people in the neighborhood? GREAT! Old people are quiet. Younger families in the neighborhood = more noise (not that most of the types of noise generated by such households is annoying)
Of course, I'd expect a large percentage of people in here to choose house #2, simply because it's my perception that many of the people here live in crowded areas and are used to them. As far as having old people in the neighborhood? GREAT! Old people are quiet. Younger families in the neighborhood = more noise (not that most of the types of noise generated by such households is annoying)
My gf's house was built in the 1870's. Sure, there are lots of little things wrong with it, but it took 130 years for that to happen. The house is made of brick and good, strong wood. Lots of hardwoods.
I've been in some of the new houses built in the 1980's and 90's, and they are built like absolute garbage. When you walk on the floor you can hear the wood knocking because it's so cheap and thin. It doesn't sound solid at all. Instead of thick hardwood they use soft pine or even particleboard. Instead of nails they use that sheetmetal prefab. Instead of brick they use particleboard with fake brick fascade stuck on. The quality just isn't the same, and I can guarantee you that in 130 year that house won't be standing.
I've been in some of the new houses built in the 1980's and 90's, and they are built like absolute garbage. When you walk on the floor you can hear the wood knocking because it's so cheap and thin. It doesn't sound solid at all. Instead of thick hardwood they use soft pine or even particleboard. Instead of nails they use that sheetmetal prefab. Instead of brick they use particleboard with fake brick fascade stuck on. The quality just isn't the same, and I can guarantee you that in 130 year that house won't be standing.
Amdiggidy
Senior member
- Jan 26, 2005
- 911
- 0
- 76
I agree. If this isn't going to be the house you live in for 10+ years, then #2 would be a better option. You would spend less on repairs (you could spend that money instead on giving the house it's own flavor --ie exterior, etc.), and you could probably sell it quicker once you found a house you wanted to live in for a longer period of time.
Coming from someone who chose "the older, cozier house with the bigger yard" over the new construction, let me tell you: all sorts of unexpected 'problems' popped up the minute we moved in. We sunk so much money into that house for much needed repairs (ie fixing the heater in the dead of winter for instance) that we could have saved thousands buying the other house. And since we didn't even live in the house for 4 years, the newer home would have saved a ton, regardless of its crappy location.
Cliff notes: if you're not planning on living in this house forever, choose #2 and save yourself some money. :thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter