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.
The article was an article telling of the Perfect Storm.n This is where the stars had to line up perfectly with Jupiter and Mars in a J like configuration at the exact same moment. But it makes for sensational journalism, and that's what gets people's attention and sells.
Condo's can be wonderful choices for first time homeowners, snow birds, retirees, and just about anyone who is not into a lot of outside maintenance. Also for people who like to travel a lot.
They can also have their share of problems. Especially if they are not in good neighborhoods, with:
Renters
When not managed by a management company but by nim wits who don't know squat about managing, bookkeeping, insurance and what it takes to maintain buildings properly and the costs involved.
HOA Delinquencies
Poor upkeep. Important that the HOA fees keep up with not only the current expenditures but those down the pike.
However, there are many well run complexes that do not fall into this category, and only have the occasional problems, and for those, they can be a very pleasant experience.
I'm not making a blanket statement, I'm making one from my experiences. They aren't all that hopping. Oh sure there are yoga classes, arts classes, tennis, etc. But not the real vibrancy that an urban core with students / touring bands / art installations, etc possess. There are plenty of amazing older people, but generally those places with all older people don't have the energy a mixed age group community in a city has.
Why would you compare a 55+ community with an urban core? Most suburban areas would pale in comparison to the "real vibrancy" of the urban core. The correct comparison for a 55+ community would be a typical mixed-age-group suburban housing tract. And when you make such a comparison, I'm pretty confident that the 55+ community will be more vibrant that the typical sleepy suburb. (Unless you consider school buses to be vibrant.)
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
Why would you compare a 55+ community with an urban core? Most suburban areas would pale in comparison to the "real vibrancy" of the urban core. The correct comparison for a 55+ community would be a typical mixed-age-group suburban housing tract. And when you make such a comparison, I'm pretty confident that the 55+ community will be more vibrant that the typical sleepy suburb. (Unless you consider school buses to be vibrant.)
That's exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me, they tend to be more like suburban communities with activities. Not a really vibrant place to live. I'm an outdoors person, fishing, nature photography, hiking, etc... yet there is no way I'd have my primary abode be in the suburbs or a rural area, just not enough energy. It makes sense that we see many urban core areas being re-populated by empty nesters and retirees.
(PS: To whoever likes to leave negative reps w/o signing them, go _____ yourself)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
I'll tell you what bothered me about them. People above and below us with hard wood floors - many of whom liked to party late into the night. Blasting loud music. And be out at 1 am on their balconies making a lot of noise (when we had to be at work at 8 am the next day - or just wanted to go to sleep).
I live in the first SFH we have ever lived in now. Has its advantages - and disadvantages as well. But it is generally peaceful and quiet (one of its advantages). Robyn
Indeed. That would bother me too. I've not experienced that, even when living in college towns. I've often selected top level units though, when I could, to avoid some of that.
That's exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me, they tend to be more like suburban communities with activities. Not a really vibrant place to live. I'm an outdoors person, fishing, nature photography, hiking, etc... yet there is no way I'd have my primary abode be in the suburbs or a rural area, just not enough energy. It makes sense that we see many urban core areas being re-populated by empty nesters and retirees.
(PS: To whoever likes to leave negative reps w/o signing them, go _____ yourself)
It was not a negative rep. In fact I left it possitive. You should have guessed it was me. I made mention that you lumped old people into a lethargic mass of humanity. I own up to my words. All I did was tell you that you need to own up to yours.
$200-400 is steep to me. We're looking for retirement housing in the $80-90 a sq. ft. range. And no maint. fee. I don't even care about an ocean view. Give me an inland lake any day over the ocean.
$200-400 is steep to me. We're looking for retirement housing in the $80-90 a sq. ft. range. And no maint. fee. I don't even care about an ocean view. Give me an inland lake any day over the ocean.
$80-90 sf is almost impossible unless you're talking about older places in areas that are economically depressed - very cheap construction - etc. Especially when it comes to "retirement places". Which typically tend to be smaller. The most expensive rooms to build are kitchens and bathrooms. And - to the extent that they make up a relatively larger % of a house (like in a 2/2 house) - the place will be more expensive on a sf basis than a house where they make up a relatively smaller % (like in a 4/3 house).
Of course - land costs are all over the place too. Higher in more desirable relatively built-out areas - lower in less desirable pretty wide-open areas.
BTW to everyone. I see a lot of messages that are using "condo associations" and "HOAs" interchangeably. They are in many (but not all) states - including Florida - 2 totally different animals governed by 2 totally different sets of statutes. FWIW - it's hard to find "retirement communities" in Florida that aren't condos or HOAs. And here - in NE Florida - it's hard to find any nicer newer SFHs that aren't in HOAs (with HOA fees). Simply because of the cost involved installing infrastructure like water and sewers and cable in areas that previously weren't developed. It's something that developers do - not something that individual owners do. Robyn
That's exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me, they tend to be more like suburban communities with activities. Not a really vibrant place to live. I'm an outdoors person, fishing, nature photography, hiking, etc... yet there is no way I'd have my primary abode be in the suburbs or a rural area, just not enough energy. It makes sense that we see many urban core areas being re-populated by empty nesters and retirees...
(PS: To whoever likes to leave negative reps w/o signing them, go _____ yourself)
I think people are/aren't vibrant. Not places. Also - when it comes to Florida - it's pretty much one big suburb peppered here and there with slums and rural areas. Even the high rises I've lived in in Florida were pretty suburban. When I want a dose of the "big city" - I don't head to downtown Tampa . I think most downtowns in Florida are similar to those in other sunbelt states. There is often not much there (a recent stay in downtown Houston comes to mind).
FWIW - I wonder if anyone has observed that at least some cities that used to have great downtowns - like Chicago - have deteriorated somewhat in recent years in the sense that there's more crime - they're more dangerous - have bigger and bigger financial problems - etc. Also - some areas that are currently touted as undergoing revitalization - places like downtown Los Angeles - still have a long way to go. One big issue in many of these places is schools. Which matters indirectly to retired people to the extent that younger people pull up stakes and move to the suburbs when they have kids. Who wants to live in a place where everyone is 22 or 72?
Finally - how do you leave a negative rep? Only positive reps allowed here . Robyn
FWIW - I wonder if anyone has observed that at least some cities that used to have great downtowns - like Chicago - have deteriorated somewhat in recent years in the sense that there's more crime - they're more dangerous - have bigger and bigger financial problems - etc.
Referring to Chicago, I think you've mischaracterized the "great downtown" of the city. Downtown Chicago is more vibrant than at any point in my nearly 65-years. Instead of "deterioration" we have constant building of new structures - residential - stores - offices. Downtown restaurants - good restaurants - have probably quadrupled in the past 5 years. I don't think Chicago's Downtown is any "more dangerous" today than it was 30 years ago.
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.
. Robyn
