buying in New Town (St Charles, MO) (St. Louis, St. Charles: sales, to rent)

[flynavyj]

Originally Posted by aragx6

... but it's very possible that all roads to it could be impassable.

"I'm on a boat, I'm on a boat, everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat!"

[aragx6]

Please tell me you have your flippy-floppies :P

[kapcccsrc]

New Town in NOT a flood plain. Do you honestly think that builders would put millions of dollars into a community only to build it where it will be underwater? Seriously?!

In 1993, the Midwest experienced the most severe flood in recent history and much of St. Charles County was underwater. Because of its higher elevation, little flooding occurred on the future site of New Town. Nevertheless, New Town's developers built a series of lakes and canals for drainage and used the excavated dirt to raise the site's elevation by several feet.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Town,_Missouri]New Town, Missouri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Originally Posted by glamatomic

I initially had the idea of buying a house this year, just for 4-5 years until my husband got through college and we could afford something better. But I've since changed my mind and am currently looking for somewhere that I could see myself living in for 10 years.

I *do* think that the property market will improve. But in 5 years, I don't think you'll get the best turn around. St. Louis's property market was always lagging behind the Sunbelt cities, even before the current recession. I honestly do think that it will take *more* than 5 years for a house to really go up in substantial value in the St. Louis area. But that's just my guesstimate.

As for New Town, I'm sorry I never lived there. I had a friend who did, and whenever I visited I didn't much care for it.

As others have said, New Town is in a flood plain. If the flood of '93 happened over again, New Town would literally be under water. Additionally, it all appears too clinical / studio backlot to me. The isolation factor is also a big one. Walkability / Urban environments are getting more important to a lot of buyers now days, and I think will continue to be a selling point in the future as gas prices get more expensive, and the sustainability/environmental awareness movement catches on more than it already has.

New Town had the *intention* of being a mini, urban environment, but has failed in this task on a lot of levels. Although it has a small grocery store (Marsalas Market), it's not as extensive or affordable as Schnucks, the closest of which is over 3 miles away.

Additionally, most companies and businesses are situated *outside* New Town, making a commute mandatory for most people. Like another poster said, the commute to the city is 40 minutes or more which is a *lot* for an area of St. Louis.

I agree that the houses in New Town are currently more affordable than they once were, but considering that New Town has been 'in development' for so long, and never really "caught on" (it used to be the brunt of jokes between co-workers and I, likening the place to Stepford or the Truman Show) I wouldn't consider it a "sure thing" investment.

Depending on how much you wanted to spend, you may find something that is a safer investment in the Webster Groves / Kirkwood areas.

Good Luck

[aragx6]

^Sure, and Chesterfield Valley isn't in a floodplain either -- those developers wouldn't want to lose money!

That nugget it directly from the developer's website. I woudn't necessarily trust it.

[kapcccsrc]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Based on the bolded, I would highly recommend renting. Even new homes have maintenance requirements, and in 5 years you'd have to make money on the home just to be able to sell without bringing a hefty check to the table -- think about both your and the buyer's realtor fees, closing costs etc.

And when you say flooding "isn't an issue to you" you come across as pretty naive and would do well to heed the concerns of those who live here, those of us who sandbagged to save our neighbors' homes. Any of us who lived through the '93 flood have a healthy fear of the havoc it can produce. The land that now is home to New Town itself wasn't under water in '93 because it sits on a slight hill, but it's very possible that all roads to it could be impassable.

I don't find anything "naive" about the person wanting information on New Town, in fact, you sound uninformed about the flood of '93 effects on the land that is now New Town. They experienced very little flooding in that area. In fact, it was Charlestown area that was more effected by it and had to have the ground built up by six feet before building there. New Town actually has taken flood preventative measures and their builder would never have invested millions of dollars into a flood plain. The town has lakes and canals for drainage as well. You should be more worried about other areas of St. Charles flooding than New Town the next time you call someone "naive" about the flood of '93. I was there and moving to New Town would not be an issue for me--nor would I live in fear--because of something that happened almost 20 years ago! There are many other places in the STL area that have a higher potential for flooding and you don't see people making an issue of it.

[kapcccsrc]

I never read the builder website, I happen to know people who represent the company. What, any place that's expensive to live in is a flood plain to you?

[kapcccsrc]

Do not rent, now more than ever is a good time to buy. I'm sorry you aren't receiving responses from people who actually LIVE in New Town like your post requests. Some people can't read. There's nothing like owning your own (brand new) home and living in a beautiful community. If you have the money, why NOT build a home there? That's what I'm doing!

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by kapcccsrc

I don't find anything "naive" about the person wanting information on New Town, in fact, you sound uninformed about the flood of '93 effects on the land that is now New Town. They experienced very little flooding in that area. In fact, it was Charlestown area that was more effected by it and had to have the ground built up by six feet before building there. New Town actually has taken flood preventative measures and their builder would never have invested millions of dollars into a flood plain. The town has lakes and canals for drainage as well. You should be more worried about other areas of St. Charles flooding than New Town the next time you call someone "naive" about the flood of '93. I was there and moving to New Town would not be an issue for me--nor would I live in fear--because of something that happened almost 20 years ago! There are many other places in the STL area that have a higher potential for flooding and you don't see people making an issue of it.

Totally disagree. I wouldn't suggest anyone move to a floodplain in St. Louis without very careful consideration.

[aragx6]

For more on the subject, I highly recommend looking at the flood maps found here: Buyers Need to Check the Flood Zone Status of a Home BEFORE Making an Offer | Arch City Homes

New Town is absolutely in a flood plain, whatever they might claim.

And here's a great article from the NYT about development in areas which were underwater in 1993:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/15flood.html

About 28,000 homes have been built and more than 6,000 acres of commercial and industrial space developed on land that was underwater in 1993, according to research by Nicholas Pinter, a geologist who studies the region at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

edit: And while it's easy to say that floods are relatively rare occurences, it should be noted that the metro has seen two "100-year floods" in the last 35 years.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by kapcccsrc

I never read the builder website, I happen to know people who represent the company. What, any place that's expensive to live in is a flood plain to you?

Aww, honey. Really, you think I'm jealous of New Town? That's rich.