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.
Yeah we have already moved and I've only been retired for less than 3 years. Wife wants to build a house in northern Idaho or Montana on some land but now in our 60's, it's harder to work the land and you need access to hospitals and doctors as you get older so we don't agree. I guess I would be okay spending summer in the PNW but spending winter in the PNW again just depresses me. I would rather build something in the mountains of Arizona.
I don't see why any retiree would buy a gigantic sized house for retirement, maybe a former President or some other important official who would need to entertain, but for most people, you need something smaller.
I like the small 1950s ranches that are mostly being torn down these days. They're just right for a retired couple except maybe the yards can be too big. They usually have three bedrooms so there's extra space for relatives who come to visit, the kitchens are okay and -wow-they actually have a window! You can update the kitchen if you want to though. The bathrooms are good in most cases and, again, they have a window! Everything is on one level and you could install a stacking washer and dryer, maybe inside a closet.
Capes are good too because they usually have a bedroom downstairs plus a tv room/office/extra bedroom. Good living room and kitchen. And they have two bedrooms upstairs that you don't have to use but they are great for guests. Stairs get to be a real drag and a danger as you get older so I don't understand the people who buy huge houses with staircases. It won't be that long before they have to purchase an expensive and slow stairlift.
Did you read the article?
It doesn't say there was anything particularly gigantic about the house they built after selling their business.
They sold it because the geographic location got boring/isolating since it was 30 minutes from anything else. (On the Intracoastal of SC.)
The problem may lie with the "nuclear family" paradigm that most housing is designed for. Like the "starter home" - a master suite plus two tiny bedrooms combined with an open plan kitchen / dining / family room kludge.
Then consider the extended family that was the pattern for "nice" houses of the 18th and 19th centuries, which also included accommodations for servants, etc. Much larger bedrooms (though lacking in closets). And more enclosed space for privacy.
It was not unusual for a family "mansion" to have multiple adult relatives as well as children, living under one roof. In many instances, such houses allowed the owners the option to take in boarders. (In "The Day The Earth Stood Still", note the interesting interaction between the landlady and her boarders.)
Once electrical appliances reduced or eliminated the need for maids, nannies, cooks, gardeners, butlers, etc., etc. (And taxes and labor laws made those career paths unlikely), houses began to shrink.
After the socialist revolution of 1933, it shrank even more as the number of children per family kept declining.
One thing is certain - the current pattern is woefully inadequate.
. . .
One possible solution : construct a home that's a combination of modules that can be reconfigured into accommodations for rentals / guests / staff as well as flexible with respect to the needs of a multigenerational family.
. . .
The house should be functional and frugal, too. Superinsulation cuts down on the fuel costs to maintain comfort. Energy recovery ventilation is a must, too.
. . .
A house that is comfortable and functional for a young couple, and can accommodate a large brood of children, as well as relatives and adult children, is a rare house, indeed. Add universal access efficiency apartments for the aged and / or infirm, and you won't be "forced out" of your home by circumstances.
. . .
IMHO, an ideal compromise might have features not unlike a small hotel, hostel, fraternity or boarding house, with the option to offer meals to the renters. Depending on the size, one might be able to afford paid staff to do the upkeep and so forth. Also, one might design in two dormitories with multiple bunk beds for children.
FWIW - if one charged rent based on 1/4 minimum wage, every four tenants represent the gross income of "one worker". A structure with 16 tenants would provide the equivalent income of four workers. May be more than enough to afford paid staff.
Alternately, the building could be occupied by one's extended family, blood kin and relatives by marriage, sharing the work load for maintenance and upkeep, and building wealth for the family. And if held in a family trust, deaths won't cause the tax man to descend upon the inheritance... PERHAPS THAT IS A "FOREVER" HOME.
Me too! That's why I figure we'll get a practical, small, easy maintenance home in an over 55 community close to the amenities that we need (medical, shopping) and then do a little traveling. A week at the beach here, 2 weeks in a mountain cabin there, maybe a long weekend in the city and even a stay at a working farm. I'm up for it all.
We don't have to cram it all into one year, we can take our time and do things as our budget allows. If our kids want to join us on an adventure that would be great.
True....why buy all those places when they can be easily "rented" and with much more flexibility and no upkeep? It's a bit like those who want to buy a pickup so they can handle that once a year event of moving a big piece of furniture! Uhm....rent a pickup or uhaul for a day instead!
But people seem to feel more self sufficient or somehow more in control or "smarter" if they own stuff outright. They've been programmed to believe you're losing money if you "rent" even if you barely use the thing. Well, it's hard having all your money tied up and things don't ALWAYS appreciate to the degree you need them to. Usually when you get older you don't want to be "owned" by all your posssessions, right?
This is not at all unusual. In fact I would say it is the norm at least for suburbia.
Over the years my wife and I have lived in several areas:
Cleveland, Little Rock, Kansas City, San Fernando Valley (LA), Chicago, Phoenix, Long Island (2 different houses and neighborhoods). The number of neighborhood friends and social interactions with neighbors has been minimal in all those decades. Cleveland was an old dying neighborhood with transient rentors. In Little Rock we were Northerners and non-Baptists. In KC, there was a single block party we attended. In Chicago, a neighbor was a Sears exec who had a big business BBQ and invited the neighbors. In Phoenix my wife was friends with a woman down the street with children the same age. I was in their house once. They used our pool when we went on vacation. In 30 years of living on Long Island we have never had a neighbor in our house or been invited by a neighbor. After 8 years in our present house, we know the names of only one set of neighbors who are adjacent to us.
It is not that we are anti-social but in all of the neighborhoods where we have lived, interactions between neighbors are very minimal. Even neighborhood kids rarely play with each other. All of our friends are from taking OLLI classes or due to photography, archery or other hobbies and activities.
If you want to change this, it is likely to be difficult. You might need to take the first step by inviting neighbors to a pool/patio party at your house. That might break the ice but I would not count on it.
We’ve lived in 5 states and suburbs and I disagree , never faced this kind of social disinterest to this extent. We live in Phoenix also . We have tried to wave and say hi to our neighbours and people seem to visibly cringe lol! They don’t want to make eye contact. It’s the weirdest thing. Not for a minute do I believe all of Arizona is like that as we’ve met some nice people in all our road tripping around the state but where fluffy is my friend had the same issue, and where we are same issue. My friend moved out of state and she met and made more friends in one month than she did the five years in Scottsdale.
Thankfully we are not lonely and keep very busy so it doesn’t bother us, it’s just strange.
True....why buy all those places when they can be easily "rented" and with much more flexibility and no upkeep? It's a bit like those who want to buy a pickup so they can handle that once a year event of moving a big piece of furniture! Uhm....rent a pickup or uhaul for a day instead!
But people seem to feel more self sufficient or somehow more in control or "smarter" if they own stuff outright. They've been programmed to believe you're losing money if you "rent" even if you barely use the thing. Well, it's hard having all your money tied up and things don't ALWAYS appreciate to the degree you need them to. Usually when you get older you don't want to be "owned" by all your posssessions, right?
I can definitely see the beauty in owning a waterfront home on a couple of acres and being able to watch the dolphins every morning and being able to catch my own dinner if I want to.
Every time we've stayed at a nice vacation rental, I've found myself looking at the real estate for sale ads thinking...wow, i would love for this to be our life.
But, then, I get sticker shock and realize that having your appendix out or a blown knee would really be awful if I then had to hike up all those stairs just to get back inside my house, lol.
Hopefully the ocean won't change, but the neighbors sure have. In our 15-unit condo complex, all have sold except for us and one other---the only original owners.
I do like the new owners, but all 6 of them are retired single men, lol. The others turned out to be absentee.
I don't care. I'm happy just gazing out to sea, taking a walk, reading a book or internet surfing. I don't need much social interaction. But the Scottsdale thing does seem weird.
In SoCal, I remember noticing how no one seemed to use their elaborate backyard decks, despite the benign weather. And that was in the 80s, lol. We only knew a couple of our neighbors in Mission Viejo but I didn't think anything of it---we were so busy then.
The problem may lie with the "nuclear family" paradigm that most housing is designed for. Like the "starter home" - a master suite plus two tiny bedrooms combined with an open plan kitchen / dining / family room kludge.
Then consider the extended family that was the pattern for "nice" houses of the 18th and 19th centuries, which also included accommodations for servants, etc. Much larger bedrooms (though lacking in closets). And more enclosed space for privacy.
It was not unusual for a family "mansion" to have multiple adult relatives as well as children, living under one roof. In many instances, such houses allowed the owners the option to take in boarders. (In "The Day The Earth Stood Still", note the interesting interaction between the landlady and her boarders.)
Once electrical appliances reduced or eliminated the need for maids, nannies, cooks, gardeners, butlers, etc., etc. (And taxes and labor laws made those career paths unlikely), houses began to shrink.
After the socialist revolution of 1933, it shrank even more as the number of children per family kept declining.
One thing is certain - the current pattern is woefully inadequate.
. . .
One possible solution : construct a home that's a combination of modules that can be reconfigured into accommodations for rentals / guests / staff as well as flexible with respect to the needs of a multigenerational family.
. . .
The house should be functional and frugal, too. Superinsulation cuts down on the fuel costs to maintain comfort. Energy recovery ventilation is a must, too.
. . .
A house that is comfortable and functional for a young couple, and can accommodate a large brood of children, as well as relatives and adult children, is a rare house, indeed. Add universal access efficiency apartments for the aged and / or infirm, and you won't be "forced out" of your home by circumstances.
. . .
IMHO, an ideal compromise might have features not unlike a small hotel, hostel, fraternity or boarding house, with the option to offer meals to the renters. Depending on the size, one might be able to afford paid staff to do the upkeep and so forth. Also, one might design in two dormitories with multiple bunk beds for children.
FWIW - if one charged rent based on 1/4 minimum wage, every four tenants represent the gross income of "one worker". A structure with 16 tenants would provide the equivalent income of four workers. May be more than enough to afford paid staff.
Alternately, the building could be occupied by one's extended family, blood kin and relatives by marriage, sharing the work load for maintenance and upkeep, and building wealth for the family. And if held in a family trust, deaths won't cause the tax man to descend upon the inheritance... PERHAPS THAT IS A "FOREVER" HOME.
I think a lot of your ideas are truly fun and interesting to consider, but I see so many problems.
-In major cities with lots of people, a new three bedroom, 1500 sq ft townhome is $750k. I can't imagine how the young couple would afford such a place when many can't afford an efficiency.
-I had considered combining a renter with raising a family (and I had two empty bedrooms) but the legal and safety ramifications ultimately convinced me the risk was not worth it. The sweet single mothers are often fleeing violent partners (can't have that around my kids) or unstable employment (evictions aren't free or easy - and I wouldn't be doing it out of charity).
-Both sets of grandparents had multigenerational/extended family homes. My grandmother raised her family in a duplex where her sister and her family lived next door. My other grandmother had both her mother and my grandfather's aunt living with them. These arrangements worked out just fine.
-I personally love the idea of always living with one of my kids provided I have some small private spaces (bedroom and sitting room).
In SoCal, I remember noticing how no one seemed to use their elaborate backyard decks, despite the benign weather. And that was in the 80s, lol. We only knew a couple of our neighbors in Mission Viejo but I didn't think anything of it---we were so busy then.
I think that's the key to our neighborhood vibe or lack of one: Families are just so busy. Even without rugrats, we were pretty busy in our forties, too.
But dang it, I just don't want to be in a retirement community. And certainly not The Villages.
My MIL had friends in their 70s and 80s who moved about every 2 years. The wife was a real estate agent, so they saved on commissions, but she certainly must have been able to see how much in fees and moving costs they were incurring. Not to mention each house had to be upgraded to their tastes of course! The last move that we were aware of, they moved to a Phoenix gated community. She wanted her hubby to be more active so she had a putting green and a lap pool put in to the back yard. Her hubby never used either of them. He hated to get out of the house, and he hated that she built these things to try and make him do what she wanted him to do. He died less than a year later, so she probably moved again, but MIL lost track of them eventually.
We made a great friend when we moved next door to a fun lady (70 yo) named "Helen". Helen then sold the next door house which she had just finished renovating, and bought one on the golf course about half a mile from her old house. She renovated the kitchen and master bath there, and then got remarried and moved her new husband in. They bought a summer lake cottage up north and renovated that. Then they moved from the golf course house to Florida (the Villages of course), hated that after 1 year, and moved to North Carolina. So that's 5 homes she's lived in in the 8 years we've known her. They still use the lake cottage for 2-3 months in summer, but I don't know how long they'll keep it as it's quite boring up there on an island you have to take a 2 hour ferry to get to.
We've lived here for 8 years since we made our cross country retirement move. I can see us moving one more time in about 5 to 8 years, we're 62 and 67 now. After that, who knows....
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.
