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.
Thank you for your comments thus far. Clearly, I need to provide more information. My question is specific to McLean, VA. For those out of the area, it's close to DC and is very desirable for its easy/short commute to DC and excellent schools. One of the subdivisions I am considering is comprised of 300+ homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s and are on .5 acre lots. The other type of home I am looking at is generally a home built in the late 1990s or later and is in an area with a mixture of older (1950s and 1960s) homes. The second type of home generally has a lot size of .25 acres and replaced an older home that was torn down because a developer saw a profitable opportunity. I don't think structural soundness plays into the decision much at all.
Virgo describes the situation very well. One difference is that the tear-down homes tend to be larger (2500 sq feet or larger) and with outdated interiors.
I posted the question because we plan to stay in the house for the next 20+ years, until retirement. I'm concerned that the house may decline in value despite location because many of the homes in the subdivision with .5 acre lots do NOT been updated kitchen, baths etc which is not typical for McLean as far as I know. If so, I may be subject to whatever a developer would pay. If that's the case, then I thought I would be better off to buy a much newer home.
Again I would always go for the home on the larger lot hands down. I can always update the interior but I'll never be able to enlarge the lot. FYI, new homes can very easily decline in value just as much as an older home.
I think builders have a lot to do with it. I've seen several new homes that cost almost $2 million; yet you could literally shake hands with your neighbor while standing at your back door and he/she at his front door. Many other $1 million+ homes are on lots that are .1 acres.
I don't advocate tearing down an older home at all, especially if the end result are two McMansions on a quarter acre lot.
I think builders have a lot to do with it. I've seen several new homes that cost almost $2 million; yet you could literally shake hands with your neighbor....
Don't know about anyone else, but why would I want to pay that much money to do that when I can keep renting my apartment for under $600/mo and let other people pay for my maintenance? The rest of the experience is practically the same.
Just look at Cary, NC, pretty much the biggest subdivision in America. Gigantic houses right on top of each other on tiny lots. Why? If I'm gonna do the burb thing, I want my own space and a house with some personality.
Thank you for your comments thus far. Clearly, I need to provide more information. My question is specific to McLean, VA. For those out of the area, it's close to DC and is very desirable for its easy/short commute to DC and excellent schools. One of the subdivisions I am considering is comprised of 300+ homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s and are on .5 acre lots. The other type of home I am looking at is generally a home built in the late 1990s or later and is in an area with a mixture of older (1950s and 1960s) homes. The second type of home generally has a lot size of .25 acres and replaced an older home that was torn down because a developer saw a profitable opportunity. I don't think structural soundness plays into the decision much at all.
Virgo describes the situation very well. One difference is that the tear-down homes tend to be larger (2500 sq feet or larger) and with outdated interiors.
I posted the question because we plan to stay in the house for the next 20+ years, until retirement. I'm concerned that the house may decline in value despite location because many of the homes in the subdivision with .5 acre lots do NOT been updated kitchen, baths etc which is not typical for McLean as far as I know. If so, I may be subject to whatever a developer would pay. If that's the case, then I thought I would be better off to buy a much newer home.
I'm not sure I'd be buying anything that, when I go to sell it, a buyer would be looking at my home as a tear down. At that point, you're looking at land values only, vs home and land.
Don't know about anyone else, but why would I want to pay that much money to do that when I can keep renting my apartment for under $600/mo and let other people pay for my maintenance? The rest of the experience is practically the same.
Just look at Cary, NC, pretty much the biggest subdivision in America. Gigantic houses right on top of each other on tiny lots. Why? If I'm gonna do the burb thing, I want my own space and a house with some personality.
Someone that can afford a $2Million home is not going to be interested in renting an apartment. I'm in complete agreement with you on wanting space. Personally, I would never live in a subdivision that had 300+ homes or one that had 50 homes. I guess you could say my "new" home is in a subdivision because it has a name and we have an optional HOA that only takes care of the playground area and nothing more (no kids so no need to join) but there are no rules, all the houses are different (yes there are a few that need a good powerwashing but they're not on my street) and I like that. If I want my mailbox post to be wood then that's what I'll buy. I don't want a HOA telling me I can only have a crazy butt $1500 mailbox out front, if that's the case let the HOA buy the it.
My point was if you weren't going to have space and you were going to have your neighbors right on top of you, might as well save the millions and do the multi-family housing thing.
I am looking for a home in a very popular area in Northern Virginia--Mclean. I am curious which is the wiser financial decision: a home that is 25-30 years old but on a .5 acre lot OR a newer home (<10 years) on a .25 acre or smaller lot in a slightly less marketable area of Mclean. I assume that the older houses will be torn down in the next 10-15 years. I don't know what that means for us if we are the owners. Do we profit because the location will be extremely marketable or do we make a tiny profit because the value of the house declined due to age and the value is the land but a developer will offer much less than he/she stands to make?
Any thoughts? What determines when a subdivision reaches the tear-down stage?
I would say, Land is everthing, yet you must look towards the future and try to see ahead of what today is doing getting an estimate of what it will do down the road. As example, most poor areas are less desireable, yet in time they become the hotest propertys to buy. This is partly due to the law of supply and demand. Were once stood rubble now stands the highrise. I have purchased propertys partly due to the lack of money in down troten areas, latter to find that this was a good move as new grouth in areas expand to streach into the poorer areas were propertys are cheeper and at some point less desireable. A new hospital was born due to the lack of land to develop in the old location so they bought up large tracts of lower dollar land with houses upon it, tareing them down making way for the cancer center and related complexes. Older public housing projects is another example! Now being torn down and replaced by new small townhomes giving a rebirth to entire neighboorhoods. This regenrefication of the old to new makes one wonder just were it will happen next. For sure we will always see progress and changes, an old saying goes along with this," They are not making any more of this" and that is land. Buildings come and go, land is forever!
In considering your compairisom, I think that the new construction has a greater $ value today, however it can also be true were location is a consideration. If you have a property near a court house, historic area, or special district, their is no way of knowing what the value will be down the road, but its most likely that its going to grow with time. As we look at history, relicks are valued, new can be gotten everware, Bouth have a great value, older has more solid roots while new has the inflated value and lessor quality of construction faster build time and who knows how long before the replacement will be necessary. I like older, vs new, due to quality, construction and details, but some areas only have newer grouth construction, it here that I look to the best location were convience of shoping, parking, parks, roads, and liveability distance to work, and what my gut tells me. Oh yes my gut, we all have to live with it regardless of what it does it is a toss of the coin.
Thank you for your comments thus far. Clearly, I need to provide more information. My question is specific to McLean, VA. For those out of the area, it's close to DC and is very desirable for its easy/short commute to DC and excellent schools. One of the subdivisions I am considering is comprised of 300+ homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s and are on .5 acre lots. The other type of home I am looking at is generally a home built in the late 1990s or later and is in an area with a mixture of older (1950s and 1960s) homes. The second type of home generally has a lot size of .25 acres and replaced an older home that was torn down because a developer saw a profitable opportunity. I don't think structural soundness plays into the decision much at all.
Virgo describes the situation very well. One difference is that the tear-down homes tend to be larger (2500 sq feet or larger) and with outdated interiors.
I posted the question because we plan to stay in the house for the next 20+ years, until retirement. I'm concerned that the house may decline in value despite location because many of the homes in the subdivision with .5 acre lots do NOT been updated kitchen, baths etc which is not typical for McLean as far as I know. If so, I may be subject to whatever a developer would pay. If that's the case, then I thought I would be better off to buy a much newer home.
I just sold my CA home that was built in 1974 and it's in better condition, due to upgrades, than it was the day it was built. One desirability factor is that it sits on one acre at the top of a level cul-de-sac and offers plenty of privacy.
The home on the .5 acre lot will probably increase in value with the rest of the market and the larger lot will be more desirable as the newer lots get smaller.
What you can do while you're living there is begin to upgrade the home. You're going to live there for 20+ years and the home, if maintained, will be just as good then as it is now. The upgrades that people want 20 years from now will be different than they are now, and will be more expensive.
Perhaps 5 years before you sell you can consider what you need to do to bring the home up to the current amenity standards that people are looking for.
If you're going to stay in the house for 20+ years, buy the house you want to live in. There is no way to forecast what the market will look like in two years, never mind 20.
It sounds as though either location is going to remain desirable due to proximity to DC. Look at each house and what updates/changes you'd like to make and if it's worth it to you, not a builder or buyer who still may be riding a school bus.
The home on the .5 acre lot will probably increase in value with the rest of the market and the larger lot will be more desirable as the newer lots get smaller.
What you can do while you're living there is begin to upgrade the home. You're going to live there for 20+ years and the home, if maintained, will be just as good then as it is now. The upgrades that people want 20 years from now will be different than they are now, and will be more expensive.
Perhaps 5 years before you sell you can consider what you need to do to bring the home up to the current amenity standards that people are looking for.
What Captain Bill says here is very in line with what I was thinking. In fact, after 20+ years, both of the houses will be in need of updating before selling. But of course we can't predict today what those preferred updates will be.
I also agree with capecpdcathy that since you will be in the house 20+ years, choose the house you would rather live in.
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.