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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,488 posts, read 15,030,115 times
Reputation: 7354
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan
That's not true. It might not buy the lap of luxury, but all of those cities have listings for condos well under $500,000. And some of the more outlying sections of Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and DC will have single family homes for about that or not much more. Housing is expensive in these cities, but mostly what is meant by this is that you are buying something smaller on less land. It doesn't mean there isn't anything that's affordable.
I didn't say you couldn't find anything for that price, I said not much. You might get lucky, but chances are you'll either be getting a really old (and not in the good way) house/building or a tiny place. As for the stuff on the friges as you say, that is true, but a lot of those houses are mid-20th century ranches and such. If you are going to buy one of those, why not just move to the burbs where it's cheaper?
Also, "nice" in my book doesn't necessarily mean luxurious.
As for spending $500k for something "nice" in Boston, DC, SF or LA....FORGETABOUTIT
It wasn't until to page 12 that I found the sub-$500k ones. Of those there were a lot of nice ones, but not $500k nice for the most part. If they were ~$300k or less, we could talk.
But as I qualified before, I think this exercise would be more successful in Philadelphia than the in the other cities in the thread.
*DISCLAIMER* The posts in the thread by Waronxmas are based on his personal preferences and are peppered by the last few months of house shopping in a few different cities that has turned his brain to mush.
Last edited by waronxmas; 06-13-2012 at 01:23 PM..
Damn, those seem like some pretty nice places for those prices. The # of bedrooms/baths and square footage you can get in the city is really good. And the amount of land you get in the suburbs is a lot imo. My standards have clearly been lowered by living in overpriced CA. If all my family and childhood friends weren't here I'd easily choose Philly or Chicago if I had $500K to buy.
I would imagine that Philly gives you the most "bang for your buck".
In LA, If I'm looking to make some money off of the place, I would choose a condo/SFH/Duplex in either East Hollywood or Mid-City as they are both primed for gentrification.
I didn't couldn't find anything for that price, I said not much. You might get lucky, but chances are you'll either be getting either a really old (and not in the good way) house/building or a tiny place. As for the stuff on the friges as you say, that is true, but a lot of those houses are mid-20th century ranches and such. If you are going to buy one of those, why not just move to the burbs where it's cheaper?
Also, "nice" in my book doesn't necessarily mean luxurious.
As for spending $500k for something "nice" in Boston, DC, SF or LA....FORGETABOTUIT
It wasn't until to page 12 that I found the sub-$500k ones. Of those there were a lot of nice ones, but not $500k nice for the most part. If they were ~$300k or less, we could talk.
But as I qualified before, I think this exercise would be more successful in Philadelphia than the in the other cities in the thread.
*DISCLAIMER* The posts in the thread by Waronxmas are based on his personal preferences and are peppered by the last few months of house shopping in a few different cities that has turned his brain to mush.
Fair enough; for me though would probably live in the below search zips
limited to 450-500K
To Sav - you definately get more in Philly (having lived in DC, NYC, SF I can attest - assume Chciago would be similar to Philly)
And you can get a decent home, city or burbs for 500K the more/most desireable area no unless you probably lower the expectations/amentities but compared to SF, absolutely cheaper
above all CC or Queen Village or Bella Vista (many in the 19147 I may not look at, probably anything south of Christian to me at this point would be a no)
I would imagine that Philly gives you the most "bang for your buck".
Yes and no. The desirable areas of Philly are cheaper than those of some other cities, but there are fewer desirable areas overall. $500K might get you a nice 2-BR condo in the heart of Center City, but is that necessarily better than a Victorian off the rapidly gentrifying H Street corridor in DC?
I hate the exterior architecture, but the interior looks pretty nice. It's a prime location for someone who's in their late 20s/early 30s, and not yet tired of the non-stop party action.
Yes and no. The desirable areas of Philly are cheaper than those of some other cities, but there are fewer desirable areas overall. $500K might get you a nice 2-BR condo in the heart of Center City, but is that necessarily better than a Victorian off the rapidly gentrifying H Street corridor in DC?
Well, I live in a Silver Spring home that was valued at $500,000 when I bought it. But I wouldn't get enough space for what I want if I moved into Northwest DC or even some places like Bethesda or Arlington.
Now, if you're talking about a $500,000 downpayment, then that gives some more options.
Only thing Phily has going for it is that its cheap compared to LA or San Francisco. If you ask most people they would pick the California cities even though its out of their budget but people want what they cant afford.
Only thing Phily has going for it is that its cheap compared to LA or San Francisco. If you ask most people they would pick the California cities even though its out of their budget but people want what they cant afford.
Most probably would pick CA cities based on their image and popularity but that doesn't mean the only thing Philly offers is a lower cost of living.
Philly is close to DC and NYC, which are both great cities. LA is close to SD and SF is not close to anything. Plus rail transit connecting the whole Northeast Corridor, making it way easier to get places without a car than CA. They also have this thing called a "beach season" which doesn't really exist in Northern CA where you can enjoy yourself within an hour or two outside the city at a beach you can actually swim in, LA obviously does have that though. Those are some significant advantages Philly has over CA cities imo.
But if you're buying, are you really going to be concerned about what other cities are nearby? Or the beach? My main concern is the quality of housing and the quality of neighborhood I get for my money. I would rather own a very nice house 500 miles from the nearest beach than a mediocre house 1,000 feet from the beach.
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.
\
