Posing a question--better house in less desired town or not as nice house in more desired town?? (Boston: sale, rent)

[Boston_Burbs]

Originally Posted by Dm84

Do you live in the smallest/least expensive house you could find in Sharon? Probably not and I'd be willing to guess that most people who live in "top towns" and dispense this advice on this forum don't live in the cheapest house they could buy either.

It can be very demoralizing to know you are limited to a very small pool of houses that are frankly in questionable condition vs going one town over and buying a move in ready house that was recently renovated.

The "worst case scenario" is really that someone buys the fixer upper/teardown and realize they can't afford to do any of the renovations they planned on as the bare essentials of the house like the [usually] 60 year old oil furnace breaks down, the roof springs a leak and the ancient kitchen appliances die. Then after a few years of ever increasing property tax bills they regret not buying the cheaper house in the "less than the best" school district that was in much better condition which wouldn't have cost them nearly as much money to own.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying in "the best town" but there's only so much compromising on quality of house that's reasonable before accepting that you really can't afford "the best town."

Demoralizing? Only if you are someone who lets consumerism and money define you.

I have one of the smallest, cheapest homes in my town. I could have afforded more but chose not to. I feel bad for those with huge homes and mortgages.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by Boston_Burbs

Demoralizing? Only if you are someone who lets consumerism and money define you.

I have one of the smallest, cheapest homes in my town. I could have afforded more but chose not to. I feel bad for those with huge homes and mortgages.

I'm talking about a situation where someone genuinely can't afford to buy anything decent in an expensive town but settles for a teardown they are Ill equipped to update/maintain all for the sake of a school system that may not actually provide a better education than a neighboring town where they could have afforded a decent house.

[SpringMom3]

Originally Posted by Dm84

I'm talking about a situation where someone genuinely can't afford to buy anything decent in an expensive town but settles for a teardown they are Ill equipped to update/maintain all for the sake of a school system that may not actually provide a better education than a neighboring town where they could have afforded a decent house.

No one else is talking about that though. When people say to buy in the nicest town you can afford, they don't mean to buy a tear-down with tons of absolutely necessary maintenance issues that in effect you can't afford.

[Blank1127]

Thank you for all the insightful replies so far. My thought is that we probably should try to stick to Easton, as we've laid some great roots here in the short 3.5 years we've been here. There are homes well within our budget, although (sheepishly admitting) I'm someone whose not that handy and much prefer a home that is on the newer side and updated, at the compromise of the perceived better town and school school system.


At the end of the day, is there really much difference, in the long run, between the public schools of say Raynham as compared to Easton? I doubt it. In fact, a big override was just shot down in Easton that was to largely fund many positions in the school system, so there are likely many cuts coming down the pike.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Blank1127

At the end of the day, is there really much difference, in the long run, between the public schools of say Raynham as compared to Easton? I doubt it. In fact, a big override was just shot down in Easton that was to largely fund many positions in the school system, so there are likely many cuts coming down the pike.

The quality of the school system is largely a function of the parents of the children, not gold-plated brand new school buildings and highly paid teachers. If you live in a town with mostly college educated professionals who are fully engaged in their children's education, you could have 100 year old rickety wood framed schools with no gym and no cafeteria and still have an excellent outcome. Fancy field house? Swimming pool? Giant auditorium? They don't particularly matter and that's why overrides get shot down. Any engaged parent in that kind of town is going to be doing all kinds of private extracurricular things. Music. Art. Dance. Various sports. Cuts in school programs in those areas won't impact them.

The median household income in Easton is double that of Raynham. Children will have a much stronger peer group in Easton. That really impacts the outcome.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Dm84

I'm talking about a situation where someone genuinely can't afford to buy anything decent in an expensive town but settles for a teardown they are Ill equipped to update/maintain all for the sake of a school system that may not actually provide a better education than a neighboring town where they could have afforded a decent house.

Nobody ever died from raising a family of 3 in a 2 bedroom house with one bath and a 1950's kitchen and no garage. In a few years, you can chip away at all the cosmetics to get the exterior and landscaping looking nice, correct the thermal barrier problems that make it expensive to heat & cool, and deal with the cosmetics inside.

Here's the kitchen of my little 2 bedroom 1 bath house when I bought it. If I'd been tight on cash, I could have lived with it as-is for quite a few years. Everything worked. I don't have kids but the school system is good compared to the failed school system in the decaying city a couple miles away. I gutted the kitchen and living room, moved walls around, and vaulted ceilings before I moved in but I didn't have to.

[Steephill2]

For around 900k, would you rather live in a modest to outdated home in Lexington or an equivalent brand new construction in Arlington?, which seems to be the going rate for these houses in the two towns nowadays. And no " I would not pick either" answers or "it depends" answers.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Nobody ever died from raising a family of 3 in a 2 bedroom house with one bath and a 1950's kitchen and no garage. In a few years, you can chip away at all the cosmetics to get the exterior and landscaping looking nice, correct the thermal barrier problems that make it expensive to heat & cool, and deal with the cosmetics inside.

Similarly, sending your kids to a school ranked 20 places lower will not ruin their lives. Good schools have value; good houses have value, too.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by Steephill2

For around 900k, would you rather live in a modest to outdated home in Lexington or an equivalent brand new construction in Arlington?, which seems to be the going rate for these houses in the two towns nowadays. And no " I would not pick either" answers or "it depends" answers.

My vote here would be Arlington in a second for many reasons, but these are both highly sought after towns. These decisions get a lot trickier when you're batting around $400k.

[Brave Stranger]

Most all new construction for single family homes in Arlington start at around 1.2 million dollars & up......900k will get you a rehab, or close to total gut-job, but the days of sub-million dollar new construction homes are about over in Arlington. I've seen some new construction single family homes in Lexington only a few hundred grand more than Arlington....times are changing.

Matter of fact I just drove by a new construction home at 128 Lowell St in Lexington today. Price: 1.2 million dollars. Sames as, or cheaper than most new construction in Arlington.