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.
Everyone knows an apartment is rented and a condo is owned and then can be used by the seller or rented out, if its rented out it's condo rental. I know it's still an apartment but society has agreed on a simple meaning understood by all.
That logic does not flow right. An apartment is 'owned' by someone. No?
You seem to be saying that if a condo is rented it's a condo because it's 'owned'. If an apartment is rented, nobody 'owns' it? I really don't follow your logic at all.
Maybe I've lived in too many different places in the US and in the world and know too many diverse people but if someone says that they live in an apartment, I would not make any assumption about whether they own it or rent it. Really, it would not suggest one way or the other to me.
An apartment is an architectural term, a condo is a legal one. I lived in an apartment that was converted to condo status. The gain on sale of the condo was the down payment for my next, and so far last, house.
Developers are building condos because that's what they think people want. That is all any business ever does.
Condo creation is the worst real estate trend ever!!! It only makes money for the developers and took away affordable rental units.
Why? When the condo sells, the developer gets his capital back with a huge profit, then sticks it to the condo owner by charging monthly maintenance fees. The condo buyer is now paying a mortgage, property taxes and ... the monthly maintenance fees which are close to what they would have previously paid in rent.
Then another factor with high condo prices is parents of college students buying them as an investment while their children are going to school. Also foreigners buying condos as investments. And that takes more buying options away from first time buyers.
And condo prices do have an effect of making single free standing houses worth more.
My impression was that an apartment building, with apartments that are rented out, is owned by a single entity--a person or company or investor group etc. That entity, which is often not living in any of the apartments, owns everything except the personal belongings of the inhabitants, and pays for all of the building and exterior upkeep.
Condos are owned one by one by many owners, with all of the condo owners owning all of the common elements like the building exteriors, sidewalks, parking lots, landscape, water lines, etc. as a group, with each individual having partial ownership of the whole common aspect. Lots of owners! This requires a different legal structure to insure there is adequate upkeep.
That logic does not flow right. An apartment is 'owned' by someone. No?
You seem to be saying that if a condo is rented it's a condo because it's 'owned'. If an apartment is rented, nobody 'owns' it? I really don't follow your logic at all.
Maybe I've lived in too many different places in the US and in the world and know too many diverse people but if someone says that they live in an apartment, I would not make any assumption about whether they own it or rent it. Really, it would not suggest one way or the other to me.
An apartment means the whole building is owned by one person or company. Condos are sold to individual owners.
If you live in an apartment it means you rent it. If you live in a condo it's an apartment that was sold to an individual.
In L.A there is a trend of the “small lot homes “ these aren’t tiny homes but they are decent sized single family homes on tiny lots .
One is basically trading new construction for a smaller piece of land .
There are some single family homes with regular sized lots being built still in the city limits but they are in the more suburban part of L.A and they usually seem to be over $1 million or so.
The city is starting to encourage more dense building especially near transit stations .
In many cities in the northeast homes have often been build on small lots. My father's lot is only 25 feet by 150 long. They were built around 1900, 2 stories and no driveway, with an unfinished basement and attic.. Someone recently tore down the old home next to his and put up a new large 2 family plus small apartment and garage on the first floor. The house can only be 19 feet wide because they have to keep 3 feet on either side empty, but they are built much further back then the old homes for more square footage and no more basements.
My house cost us 13k. It was built in 1929. It's a 'kit house' and extremely solidly built. Yes, it took some work, but it wasn't that expensive. And its small, only 712 sf. Its big tiny house size. A quarter of it is only storage and it will become an extra bedroom for possible renting. But I don't have to do that here. I came from socal where it would run you at least six figures. And the work needed was some electrical and plumming, nothing structural. But I had to leave there to find small old and liveable.
I wanted a small house since I have no use for all those 'bonus' square feet. There ARE houses like mine in socal. My mom was raised in one a little larger and its still there and occupied. But where my house is dirt cheap, NOTHING in socal is. After ten years, I still don't fit here. A part of me would love to find another little house but in socal, maybe smaller town area in norcal. But that's going to be the same value as my whole neighborhood....
My house hadn't been flipped, and I know the ex neighbor raised here. It took remarkably little work, mostly updating plumming and electric. I'm taking my time on the interior. You'd never talk me into another 'bigger' house. My son and I have discussed later when I wouldn't want to live alone, and my idea is a detached, biggish tiny house. I even did a partial layout.
Its terribly sad that housing in general has become so expensive that the other end of the measure, no home, is also a growing non choice. And its not just those with health or drugs issues, but just not enough in the check to pay the rent. And the worse part is that to the average over in debt family, tomorrow is no more secure.
What we need is a basic minimum, good structure, good flooring, wiring, and the basics. You don't get huge rooms or massive ceilings, but enough space, and an afordable cost, and if when you can afford it you want to trick it up, go ahead, but there are a lot of too this or that houses which could be functional and occupied if reality was allowed to function over tv promotion of too many mansions.
An apartment means the whole building is owned by one person or company. Condos are sold to individual owners.
If you live in an apartment it means you rent it. If you live in a condo it's an apartment that was sold to an individual.
I have to agree with Larry on this and he states it well. 'Apartment' may be in a condo legal structure - or a co-op, or they may be in a building owned by a single owner. Or a building owned by three owners. NYC has loads of "apartment buildings". And the units in them are owned by individual owners and some may be owned by a single owner for the whole building. Or the city may own some of them. Or a housing association.
You say yourself that a condo is an apartment (well it might be an apartment, a town house or even a detached house actually). But yes, some apartments are condos. I.e. they are apartments with a condo legal structure. Architectural term vs legal term as Larry says. It's not logical to say that an apartment can be a condo or a co-op but that the term means that it's always rented and the whole building is owned by one person or company. That's contradictory language.
I have to agree with Larry on this and he states it well. 'Apartment' may be in a condo legal structure - or a co-op, or they may be in a building owned by a single owner. Or a building owned by three owners. NYC has loads of "apartment buildings". And the units in them are owned by individual owners and some may be owned by a single owner for the whole building. Or the city may own some of them. Or a housing association.
You say yourself that a condo is an apartment (well it might be an apartment, a town house or even a detached house actually). But yes, some apartments are condos. I.e. they are apartments with a condo legal structure. Architectural term vs legal term as Larry says. It's not logical to say that an apartment can be a condo or a co-op but that the term means that it's always rented and the whole building is owned by one person or company. That's contradictory language.
I'm not going to keep explaining it if you don't get it by now ask someone the difference between and apartment and a condo. You are just being obtuse for the sake of argument or to try to prove that you were not wrong.
Townhomes and condos are the new starter home. It allows for the maximization of land usage efficiency and has synergies of building costs. Yes there are tradoffs but in the future with population growth and resource scarcity this is what you’ll be seeing more of.
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.
