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.
In house hunting, I was hoping to get a smallish house in a nice neighborhood. Not a high end market area, but a nice, middle class area.
In looking at the houses, though, it seems that the houses in nicer areas are larger. In order to live there, I would probably have to buy a house between 2,000 & 3,000 sf. Yikes. (My current house is in a charming, older neighborhood and is about 1,565sf. But I'm moving to a lower cost of living smaller city. Also, my area has gotten super expensive.)
I do have the option of buying an old house for a lot less $, updating it (or hopefully finding one that's already updated for the most part), but it will be on a rundown street, or at least a not so nice street.
I could also buy out in a rural area, but there, too, the houses are often larger. If I could find a small one, though, it wouldn't be frugal or practical, in that it would be a big deal to constantly be traveling distances for everyday things, like joining groups or clubs, going to the dr., grocery shopping, etc. I'd probably have to get P O Box for deliveries, too.
What's a frugal person to do? I'm tempted just to get a larger house and live with the increased utilities, high cost of re-roofing a much larger house, and such. Ouch.
Buying a piece of land, if I can find one, and building? Isn't building super expensive?
I'm not interested in mobile homes or anything like that. No way.
Start talking to local builders. We just scaled down about 1/3 with all the amenities of our place in Texas plus more. Small local builder who worked with us on an almost finished house.
Small houses in great neighborhoods are often teardown candidates. Probably the best hope is a condo in a great neighborhood. My mother found one, it would have been impossible to find a single family unit, with all it's maintenance issues, in that township. Hey-doesn't this belong on the Real Estate forum?
What is your goal? High resale in a few years or permanent home? Big home in nice neighborhood more than doubles the cost upfront! How does that impact retirement savings ability?
Personally, I'd prefer a smaller home in a decent area - and add some luxury items that I really craved to make it nice for myself - quality appliances, luxury granite finishes, etc. I'd make it so nice I didn't want to sell it!
The neighborhood and location takes priority for me over the actual physical structure. I have the ability to modify the house but not the other things. So if those are the choices you face, I'd go with the larger house.
I own a 992 square foot bungalow on a 9,000 square foot lot in a rich people enclave. That's possible in New England where you have old housing stock. If I look on Zillow, I have the lowest valued house within a 1/2 mile radius. I'm 57. When I bought it 6 years ago, I had low ownership costs in mind when I retire. I paid it off in 5 years. Taxes, insurance, and utilities are less than $5K per year.
The non-frugal part is I bought a teardown and chose to remodel it instead of scraping it off the lot. I ran into a long list of issues while remodeling and have what is essentially a new house rebuilt from the inside-out. It would have been cheaper in the long run to tear it down and build a $225 per square foot house on the same footprint.
I used to own a large 105 year old house on an acre in a good inner Boston suburb. I vowed never again to own a large house. I could afford it but I was constantly having to project manage the house. There's also no way I could have owned it when I retire and my income drops. I decided to pull the plug well in advance of that event and sort out my retirement housing 15 years early. A family of 4 couldn't live in my space comfortably but it's just fine for 1 or 2 people.
I own a 992 square foot bungalow on a 9,000 square foot lot in a rich people enclave. That's possible in New England where you have old housing stock. If I look on Zillow, I have the lowest valued house within a 1/2 mile radius. I'm 57. When I bought it 6 years ago, I had low ownership costs in mind when I retire. I paid it off in 5 years. Taxes, insurance, and utilities are less than $5K per year.
The non-frugal part is I bought a teardown and chose to remodel it instead of scraping it off the lot. I ran into a long list of issues while remodeling and have what is essentially a new house rebuilt from the inside-out. It would have been cheaper in the long run to tear it down and build a $225 per square foot house on the same footprint.
I used to own a large 105 year old house on an acre in a good inner Boston suburb. I vowed never again to own a large house. I could afford it but I was constantly having to project manage the house. There's also no way I could have owned it when I retire and my income drops. I decided to pull the plug well in advance of that event and sort out my retirement housing 15 years early. A family of 4 couldn't live in my space comfortably but it's just fine for 1 or 2 people.
Well, this is nice but I don't see how this helps the OP with his choices..... larger home in a good hood or small house in an undesirable hood..... Did I miss something??
Well, this is nice but I don't see how this helps the OP with his choices..... larger home in a good hood or small house in an undesirable hood..... Did I miss something??
My answer is "neither". I think that was pretty clear and I find your snarky comment quite impolite. You want the smallest house in the good neighborhood.
Undesirable neighborhood is never a good purchase. There is a reason that "location" should always be your first consideration when looking to buy real estate. It makes more economic sense to have to heat a larger place than to have your house lose all of it's value and to be robbed on top of it.
If the house is too big, you can seal off rooms. If it costs too much to heat, you upgrade the winterization. If you buy the smaller house and the neighbors are running a drug house or an undocumented alien flop house, there is not much you can do about it.
The third choice is best. Keep looking until you find what you want.
You can buy a lot and build. Custom houses can be expensive, but most areas have economy builders where you choose one of their floor plans and don't get a lot of options. You have one of those built and then, as you have the funds, you do your own upgrades.
My answer is "neither". I think that was pretty clear and I find your snarky comment quite impolite. You want the smallest house in the good neighborhood.
I AGREE.
The original question reminds me of the old question when we were kids:
Is the capital of Kentucky pronounced "LOUEEVILLE" or "lull-Ville"?
The answer, of course, is that it is pronounced "Frankfurt".
I live in a small frugal house in a great neighborhood. Yes, they DO exist.
Generally, people who want to buy a bigger house make the claim that you can't find affordable in a good neighborhood. Generally, they have just not tried that hard.
Lousy neighborhoods are to be avoided, period. And I have the scars to prove it.
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.
