Frisco - no more best place to live ? (Richardson: real estate, house)

[Capitalprophets]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Yeah, man. That's why the 56 houses currently for sale in Highland Park that are over 50 years old have such little demand. Average price on them is over $3 million since they are so undesirable. Preston Hollow is mostly all new tract housing as well. Who doesn't dream of an endless row of lookalike houses with no real landscaping and zero creativity in design? It's everyone's goal, clearly.

I mean, who wouldn't rather live in this:


instead of this?







And neither is basic maintenance .




I mean this sincerely: I think Frisco sounds like a good fit for you. Personally, I couldn't imagine taking on the drive from Frisco to the airport on a regular basis just so my house could be less than five years old, but different people have different priorities. You know yours better than I do (hence your meaning of "what I can get"). I think you will be hard-pressed to find a place that has a larger number of reasonably affordable new houses in a decent school district than Frisco.

The second picture down does look nice, reminds me of Jersey. But having to live inside one of those. The squeaky wood floors, the outdated kitchen, the low ceilings, tiny rooms, no proper insulation through the walls (foam these days) and these are just cosmetics. Then you may have to worry about actual problems arising from inside the walls or underneath the house. I've owned a Victorian style home back in NJ but the upkeep of old homes is too much work IMO. And the house you're showing is no where 10-20 year old. Its probably older than that.

[NTXPerson]

We can argue all day about old versus new. What it boils down to is old and new both have their pros and cons. Everyone has their preferences and what they are willing to put up within a home. Therefore, you can argue all day about this and you will NOT change the other person's mind. We're arguing over details now! So, can we move on?

[jpushiys]

Originally Posted by turf3

Well, my house (and the one posted above) were built well before the last 10 or so booms.


Just as an example my house has 1 x 6 tongue and groove Douglas fir planking on every single interior wall, under the drywall. No Molly Bolts - just drive the nail right on in. What do you mean, "punch a hole in the wall"? Limestone veneer all round, including fossils. Tiles in the bathroom are set in 1.5" of concrete/steel mesh that's perfectly flat and plumb (how on EARTH did they do this?) and it's only the last 10 years or so that there have developed any cracks in the 80 year old tile work. All solid wood six panel doors with the original latches in their ornate nickel plated surrounds and faceted glass doorknobs. And so on, and so on. Oh yes, actual walls with doors, so you can close them and not hear every sound from one end of the house to the other. And this is a very modest house, two bedrooms, one bathroom, 1200 sq. ft. or so.

Wow ..That's a rare find...good for u !

[jpushiys]

Originally Posted by Capitalprophets

Lol, whats this motivation with some of you encouraging people to buy old homes? No one wants one, especially if new homes cost equally the same to some of the old ones.

If u find a newer home **with the same quality and desirable location characteristics ** of an older home, u should buy it immediately, no question.

But that is almost never the case. The ones I have seen that 'seem' to cost the same as an older home are substantially smaller and/or lower quality builds, or are right under power lines or next to a dump or halfway to Oklahoma or something. And in all those cases, u should buy the older home, no question.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by jpushiys

Wow ..That's a rare find...good for u !

It's been in the family for 45 years.

[mastershake575]

Originally Posted by Katana49

You don't have a good grip on the realities of home building.


Ever since the "boom" has hit the area, starting in 2012 or so, every builder has been building as many homes as they can. Well guess what, there is a shortage of GOOD project managers, there's a shortage of GOOD experienced labor as well. It's not that difficult to follow plans to build a house... it IS difficult to do it with an experienced crew who doesn't cut corners, as most home builders are spread very thin on their labor force. That's why some homes get built with a construction manager who is good and catches mistakes, and others get slapped together and will have problems down the road if left uncorrrected.


Having seen what passes for construction these days, I'd pick a home built before the boom vs one built now with all things being equal.

Agreed

Originally Posted by El Chingaso

And yet, you have a thread in the House forum about how to solve the sound issues caused by your cheap cardboard hollow core doors to the office in your shiny new abode.

IT'S BECAUSE THEY USE CRAPPY MATERIALS TO BUILD THOSE CHEAP HOUSES.

Every time you post anything, I'm just reminded of the gif of Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons repeatedly stepping on rakes.

Agreed. He's one of the most delusional users i've ever seen (lol at him saying "it's the same brick, wood, drywall and everything now as it was back then")

[Capitalprophets]

Originally Posted by mastershake575

Agreed


Agreed. He's one of the most delusional users i've ever seen (lol at him saying "it's the same brick, wood, drywall and everything now as it was back then")

Its just a difference of opinion. If your old house bricks were made of iron then you're right. We should all buy the oldest homes in the market.

Like NTX said, lets move on.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Capitalprophets

The second picture down does look nice, reminds me of Jersey. But having to live inside one of those. The squeaky wood floors, the outdated kitchen, the low ceilings, tiny rooms, no proper insulation through the walls (foam these days) and these are just cosmetics.

[mod cut]
Clearly, it's all quite hideous.

Originally Posted by Capitalprophets

Then you may have to worry about actual problems arising from inside the walls or underneath the house. I've owned a Victorian style home back in NJ but the upkeep of old homes is too much work IMO. And the house you're showing is no where 10-20 year old. Its probably older than that.

1. It's funny -- I feel much more confident in a 80 year old foundation that has already settled and what you see is what you get than a new build on a slab with unknown quality. That short warranty you get is insufficient to give you peace of mind regarding the foundation.

2. I never said anything about 10-20 year old homes. In fact, I said those are the houses that look dated in the worst way. I think the OP should buy a house in Grapevine where he can get a very nice house with some character on a pretty lot that is close to the airport and a nice lake.

[mastershake575]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Here's the kitchen from that house:


Here are all of the tiny rooms:


Clearly, it's all quite hideous.


1. It's funny -- I feel much more confident in a 80 year old foundation that has already settled and what you see is what you get than a new build on a slab with unknown quality. That short warranty you get is insufficient to give you peace of mind regarding the foundation.

2. I never said anything about 10-20 year old homes. In fact, I said those are the houses that look dated in the worst way. I think the OP should buy a house in Grapevine where he can get a very nice house with some character on a pretty lot that is close to the airport and a nice lake.

Literally all the old houses that are on the market and want good market price have all been upgraded with modern features. Like you said your not literally buying a 80 year old house with everything original.

My parents literally just finished renovating there 60 year old 2600 sq ft house and the market value of the house + the renovation cost is still cheaper than a new build. They have 10x better location metroplex wise (there literally in the middle of the metroplex), have a much bigger lot, and have amazing trees/landscaping.

I don't understand where all these myths are coming from ("when was it every good to buy anything used" "used home detoriate faster than new homes even though that's factually wrong" "too many variables" "everything is outdated" "nobody wants one").

He's basically creating his own fake narrative when the market is literally saying the opposite of him.....

[Capitalprophets]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Here's the kitchen from that house:


Here are all of the tiny rooms:


Clearly, it's all quite hideous.




1. It's funny -- I feel much more confident in a 80 year old foundation that has already settled and what you see is what you get than a new build on a slab with unknown quality. That short warranty you get is insufficient to give you peace of mind regarding the foundation.

2. I never said anything about 10-20 year old homes. In fact, I said those are the houses that look dated in the worst way. I think the OP should buy a house in Grapevine where he can get a very nice house with some character on a pretty lot that is close to the airport and a nice lake.

LOL, looks renovated to give it a feeling of a new home and ugh that flooring gotta go.