Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree. Thing is, the lakes around the metro area aren't that visually different from lakes up north. You can find lots of places, corners, lakeside in this area that are quite, tucked away, swimmable, etc. Perhaps there is a difference in the quality of water, and I'm not knowledgeable about that. It seems redundant to drive FIVE hours to get to a place that looks like Lake Minnetonka or Lake Nokomis, or other lakes with a wilderness quality within an hour's drive.
I have to say this is really a cultural and spiritual tradition than an utilitarian one. Five hours for a weekend trip? Eww... And you have to do maintenance, clean, mow lawns, fix things, all year round just for a few weekends up there? And it's mostly trees, bushes, and lakes? It would be a dread to go up there.
That is not true and a home on Lake Minnetonka is going to run $1,000,000+...
I don't know anyone that drives 5 hours to their lake home....but you seem to be willing to fly 8+ hours?
I would get up to the lake home in 1 hour and 60 minutes. 2 - 2.5 hours is considered the maximum distance for a lot of people (Realtors call it the "two hour rule"). 3-5 hours would be insane. Find me a person who has a long cabin drive and I will show you a person who doesn't go up there very often.
Think like someone who has a buck in their pocket. Like every human being alive, they too would much rather vacation in many places versus just one. Why would someone assume that you are locked into going to either the cabin or vacationing in many places? It is common for me to take a total of three, one week vacations a year outside of the "cabin" or Phoenix. Excluding business, I fly at least once a month for pleasure. I've been to Europe 4 times, Alaska 5, Hawaii, Mexico 20, and all over the USA. Now there are other spots on my bucket list which I will be aiming to do in the coming years.
The trade-offs are not Costs Rica or the family cabin. They are going to a birthday party or at the family cabin for the weekend. Maybe even traveling baseball versus the weekend cabin.
My experiences were folks that drove (in good traffic) 2-4 hours to the cabin (near Leech Lake). Usally 2.5-5 hours with the heavy 'cabin weekend traffic'. No, they only went up on long weekends. Understandibly so.
I would get up to the lake home in 1 hour and 60 minutes. 2 - 2.5 hours is considered the maximum distance for a lot of people (Realtors call it the "two hour rule"). 3-5 hours would be insane. Find me a person who has a long cabin drive and I will show you a person who doesn't go up there very often.
Think like someone who has a buck in their pocket. Like every human being alive, they too would much rather vacation in many places versus just one. Why would someone assume that you are locked into going to either the cabin or vacationing in many places? It is common for me to take a total of three, one week vacations a year outside of the "cabin" or Phoenix. Excluding business, I fly at least once a month for pleasure. I've been to Europe 4 times, Alaska 5, Hawaii, Mexico 20, and all over the USA. Now there are other spots on my bucket list which I will be aiming to do in the coming years.
The trade-offs are not Costs Rica or the family cabin. They are going to a birthday party or at the family cabin for the weekend. Maybe even traveling baseball versus the weekend cabin.
"A buck in their pocket." :-) You are lucky to be affluent. That certainly makes things a lot easier. Once a month for pleasure? Sounds nice. I noticed that you used "I" consistently and not "we." May I ask if you travel solo? I do.
Phoenix is quite a ways from Minneapolis. It must involve at least two nights of lodging along the way, which can become quite tedious and expensive (going there and back). Perhaps Dallas or some other place closer would be good choices too.
"A buck in their pocket." :-) You are lucky to be affluent. That certainly makes things a lot easier. Once a month for pleasure? Sounds nice. I noticed that you used "I" consistently and not "we." May I ask if you travel solo? I do.
Let me change it to "we" as I am married.
If you are buying a cabin, you really have to have a "buck in your pocket" unless it is a family cabin that you inherited. Having a buck in your pocket is a far cry from being "affluent." That's why I was perplexed that you and Oildog to assume people had to make a choice. You have to think outside of the box. Generally, people who have cabins in 2013 have some money.
Lake shore can easily run from $1000 to $5000 a linear foot just for the land. Something decent costs $1500 a foot. So for a 100 foot wide lot (nothing special), that's $150K for the land alone. Do you want to spend less? Then pick something on a smaller lake, farther from the Cities, less clear, with more elevation, softer bottom, with poor fishing. If you want it all (White Fish chain as an example) then you are going to pay $500K for that lake lot without a house.
I leave once a month to travel for leisure because I charge over $100K a year on my South West Airlines visa. When you reach 100,000 miles, the remainder of the year as well as the following year gets that companion ticket. That means I always get a free companion ticket. So for 8,000 miles RT (miles are based off the ticket price), my wife and I are in Denver from Phoenix skiing for the weekend. We can fly to the Bay Area to 12,000 round trip for us both and we are soon in Napa. We simply plan ahead. Get great rates on rental cars and play a lot for cheap. This year, I want to play even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbylake
Phoenix is quite a ways from Minneapolis. It must involve at least two nights of lodging along the way, which can become quite tedious and expensive (going there and back). Perhaps Dallas or some other place closer would be good choices too.
We fly back and forth and leave a car at the house. Actually, I have a couple of big dogs so I drive once every 6 months. We will make the pilgrimage after New Years. My wife flies and I drive.
Phoenix has three hundred plus days of sunshine. I'm there during the winter time. It might rain 3 or 4 times in the 4 months I am there. Why would I want to go to Dallas (colder, less sun and more money)? In Phoenix, I'm an hour from some World Class lakes (Lake Roosevelt), an hour from Sedona, 2 hours from Flagstaff, 4 hours from Rocky Point (Mexico Beach), 4 hours from the Grand Canyon, etc.
I bought a 3700 square foot 2006 home for $51 a square foot. Does that sound affluent to you? I am up $120,000 since early 2011 in appreciation. I got the feeling you were wondering why people buy a home in Pheonix. I think that was a good decision.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 12-02-2013 at 05:30 AM..
If you are buying a cabin, you really have to have a "buck in your pocket" unless it is a family cabin that you inherited. Having a buck in your pocket is a far cry from being "affluent." That's why I was perplexed that you and Oildog to assume people had to make a choice. You have to think outside of the box. Generally, people who have cabins in 2013 have some money.
Lake shore can easily run from $1000 to $5000 a linear foot just for the land. Something decent costs $1500 a foot. So for a 100 foot wide lot (nothing special), that's $150K for the land alone. Do you want to spend less? Then pick something on a smaller lake, farther from the Cities, less clear, with more elevation, softer bottom, with poor fishing. If you want it all (White Fish chain as an example) then you are going to pay $500K for that lake lot without a house.
I leave once a month to travel for leisure because I charge over $100K a year on my South West Airlines visa. When you reach 100,000 miles, the remainder of the year as well as the following year gets that companion ticket. That means I always get a free companion ticket. So for 8,000 miles RT (miles are based off the ticket price), my wife and I are in Denver from Phoenix skiing for the weekend. We can fly to the Bay Area to 12,000 round trip for us both and we are soon in Napa. We simply plan ahead. Get great rates on rental cars and play a lot for cheap. This year, I want to play even more.
We fly back and forth and leave a car at the house. Actually, I have a couple of big dogs so I drive once every 6 months. We will make the pilgrimage after New Years. My wife flies and I drive.
Phoenix has three hundred plus days of sunshine. I'm there during the winter time. It might rain 3 or 4 times in the 4 months I am there. Why would I want to go to Dallas (colder, less sun and more money)? In Phoenix, I'm an hour from some World Class lakes (Lake Roosevelt), an hour from Sedona, 2 hours from Flagstaff, 4 hours from Rocky Point (Mexico Beach), 4 hours from the Grand Canyon, etc.
I bought a 3700 square foot 2006 home for $51 a square foot. Does that sound affluent to you? I am up $120,000 since early 2011 in appreciation. I got the feeling you were wondering why people buy a home in Pheonix. I think that was a good decision.
Unclear if you mean you are more than affluent or less. 3700 square foot at 51 isn't necessarily expensive. Is that affluent? Your other numbers are quite handsome. I gather you are near retirement age at least?
Unclear if you mean you are more than affluent or less. 3700 square foot at 51 isn't necessarily expensive. Is that affluent? Your other numbers are quite handsome. I gather you are near retirement age at least?
I (thought) I stated that I am not "affluent" but obviously my typed words were unclear. Having enough for a cabin means you have a few hundred grand to a million extra to toss at another home. There are certainly cheaper cabins as well. To me, affluent means a multi-millionaire. Those people generally have the 6500-10,000 sq ft McMansions. The bulk of cabin owners are doing "well" but certainly not affluent.
I've had a place on a lake since I was 33. I'm 48 and still working for myself. Most cabin owners that have not inherited their parents spot have done well for themselves. On our lake, the question can be stated: "Those people own ___________ business." Just fill in the blank. If you don't own a business, then generally the buyers are a Doc, lawyer, or in upper management. Owning a nice spot is still extremely expensive. In 2013, it's not a good investment. It's a very expensive toy that some people put a lot of priority on.
Re: my spot in AZ. I was pointing out @$51 a square foot, that's cheap. That will get you a card board box in MN. Therefore people are going to AZ because they can buy a very nice home for very little money. As importantly, the cost of living is well below other areas. They are not going to look at brown desert.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 12-02-2013 at 10:39 AM..
And to a multi-millionaire, "affluent" means billionaire. And so on.
One's perception of affluence is heavily determined by one's peer group, but having "a few hundred grand to a million extra" for a cabin definitely means you have more resources than the vast majority of the population as a whole. Just because you're not well-off compared to people you know and associate with doesn't mean you're not still well-off.
To bring this back to the original topic, people of modest means don't own cabins in Minnesota unless it's through a family connection or they got one at a low price. However, I'm skeptical of how many of them will hold their value over time -- the nice places in desirable locations will do fine, since there will always be a demand for them, but I think some of the little three-season places on so-so lakes will be cheap in coming years as the older generations that really drove the cabin culture in this state pass on or decide they don't want to deal with a cabin anymore, and the younger generations aren't as enthusiastic about it. So, it's possible that some cabins will be more affordable in the future as this trend plays out.
And to a multi-millionaire, "affluent" means billionaire. And so on.
Per the definition, affluent means having a great deal of money or wealth. Therefore, even a billionaire understands that a multi-millionaire has a great deal of money. I understand your broader point.
As I said earlier, I don't think buying a cabin is a good investment. I'm speaking in 2013 terms. I also agree that location is paramount. Now a days, people with money are the ones pushing up the values. They don't want a 3rd tier lake or property. I expect those properties to drop.
Per the definition, affluent means having a great deal of money or wealth. Therefore, even a billionaire understands that a multi-millionaire has a great deal of money. I understand your broader point.
As I said earlier, I don't think buying a cabin is a good investment. I'm speaking in 2013 terms. I also agree that location is paramount. Now a days, people with money are the ones pushing up the values. They don't want a 3rd tier lake or property. I expect those properties to drop.
What was confusing was that you mentioned a buck in the bucket, monthly travels for leisure, mileage accumulation, cabin, and home in AZ. In this context, even if the home is indeed less than $200,000, you are still considered affluent by most people. True middle-class household incomes in the Twin Cities are probably between $55,000 and $120,000. It may not be a lot of money, but that's what being middle-class entails. To me, upper middle-class basically reaches affluent status. But being affluent is not being wealthy and super wealthy, as those are above affluent.
Americans' perception of "middle-class" is inflated. In a range from A to B to C, the middle is B. When Americans talk about retaining a "middle-class" quality of life, objectively speaking they are striving for a B quality of life. That's what "middle" means, even though most Americans imagine an A quality of life. "Middle" means your house is modest, white-picket fence a bit too old and needs to be replaced, kids in private school or maybe not, take one or two domestic vacations/camping a year or an international trip every three years or so. Middle-class is also a social and cultural term. You take kids to museums, enjoy state fairs and festivals, engage in communities and support causes, talk diplomatically not to make other people feel uncomfortable, pay taxes as you are the main tax payers (to feed the society so the rich stay rich), etc.
Monthly leisure trips are definitely way beyond middle-class' reach, timewise and moneywise. A lot of babyboomers I know consider themselves affluent. They are well educated, had a successful but not lucrative career, and now retire on a handsome amount of money. They take international vacation(s) each year, sip wine in Napa, visit friends in Boca, donate to political causes, and tour ancient museums in China. But they are not your "affluent" people, though. They share on milkshake on the road. They stay at maybe Best Westerns, occasionally Marriott, but certainly don't mind Country Inn. They also love small BnBs. They have somewhat a distaste for pure luxury and manicured good-looking places. Instead, they like culture, stories, history, and people. You never see them bragging about the Wynn in Vegas. They tell you this small history museum in Ireland on the potato famine, a really good brunch place in Ann Arbor, a concert in Austin, and strange noodles on a back street of Beijing. They are "good middle-class Americans" who wish everybody well.
And to a multi-millionaire, "affluent" means billionaire. And so on.
One's perception of affluence is heavily determined by one's peer group, but having "a few hundred grand to a million extra" for a cabin definitely means you have more resources than the vast majority of the population as a whole. Just because you're not well-off compared to people you know and associate with doesn't mean you're not still well-off.
To bring this back to the original topic, people of modest means don't own cabins in Minnesota unless it's through a family connection or they got one at a low price. However, I'm skeptical of how many of them will hold their value over time -- the nice places in desirable locations will do fine, since there will always be a demand for them, but I think some of the little three-season places on so-so lakes will be cheap in coming years as the older generations that really drove the cabin culture in this state pass on or decide they don't want to deal with a cabin anymore, and the younger generations aren't as enthusiastic about it. So, it's possible that some cabins will be more affordable in the future as this trend plays out.
The older generation will move into condos and retirement communities. Their next generation are much less prosperous; much fewer of them will have the ability to put up with the lifestyle. Many will sell the property to make some money. And yet, their grandchildren's generation are going to be the least prosperous of all. In another 20 years, Minnesota's cabin culture will be pretty much a luxury of the affluent (business owners, lawyers, doctors,etc.). I agree that these cabins will go down in value and people will have much less money in the future to purchase them. It was that way before. America is simply going back to its struggling times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
