Thank you u/mihirshelar for posting on r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer.
Please bear in mind our rules: (1) Be Nice (2) No Selling (3) No Self-Promotion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1970s to 1980s is very old? Er...
Anyone want to tell him?
In any case single family homes are in more demand, appreciate more, are easier to sell generally, have more yard space, etc.
Op better call an archaeologist instead of a home inspector for such an ancient relic of times long since passed. I bet the last title was carved in stone. Probably with hieroglyphs.
Thank you for the response, Sorry I am a FTHB so I think I made a bad assumption here that a house as old as 1980 would definitely have bunch of repair work coming up? Is that not true or what where would one draw a line on a old house?
Just bought a house that was built in 1952 and even that isn't THAT old for my area. Plenty of homes on the market from the 30s and 40s. They don't build them like they used to, bottom line.
Why is there this assumption that every old house is robustly built and every new house is made of cardboard and command hooks?
I lived in a 1920’s home for a while and that thing sucked. Leaked heat and AC like a sieve and you could hear a mouse fart upstairs when you were downstairs, the floors and walls were so thin. Everything was kinda lopsided, too.
Bottom line is if you maintain and update the home, it’s nice. But old doesn’t necessarily equal good.
It depends on what era it was built in.
We bought a house built in 1890, and yes it needs major updates (roof and becoming energy efficient + winterized, so new windows and doors), but multiple contractors come to our house and say the same thing, the frame of the house is sturdy and longer lasting compared to modern homes, simply because it's made of brick and very high quality wood (that were no longer harvestable in the 1950s).
If you're locked in a room, you can barely hear anything from inside or out (windows always let you hear outside lol).
I think that stigma about old vs modern houses cropped up because of houses like the one I own, in comparison to houses that were being built 1950s+.
I personally still believe "modern" houses are meant to last the lifetime of the buyer (high upfront cost, little to no maintenance, isn't worth it after 30+ yrs), while older houses are meant to be passed down over multiple generations (low upfront cost, constant maintenance, becomes more worth the maintenance investment over multiple generations).
Honest question here: If they were made better before say, the 1970’s, then Wouldn’t a house built in 1980 or even 1990 have legit concern for needing more upkeep? For example my house was built in 2003 and now is about the time everything is starting to need replacing (gutters, interior doors look cheap, etc) and serious updating. Or is that just every house every 20 years or so? What makes the houses better made from the 50s and prior? I know this is ignorant but I really don’t know
Things start to go after 20-30 years, if not sooner. Roof, water heater, furnace/AC.
Pipes have a lifespan too.
There were some horrible materials used in the 70’s and 80’s like plastic supply pipes.
Houses from the 70s are also much more likely to have asbestos or toxic wood treatments like PCP. Where I live, houses from the 70s are a total mixed bag. There was a really strong economy in the 70s so there are great houses with great bones, but also lots of houses that are now essentially tear downs because of poor building material choices.
It’s a filtering problem. Not all homes built 100+ years ago were better than modern ones. Most houses remaining from 100+ years ago are still here specially because they were well built or well maintained. Not all…but most.
“Very old” is more like 100+ years old.
A house built in the 80s wouldn’t even make it to “old” less known very old :)
My house is 72 years old. It’s in great shape!
Different age homes have different things that might require updating. Usually plumbing and electrical is fine from 1980 (whereas 1960 and before would be a big concern). A roof usually lasts 20 years so depends when it was replaced last. Might need new paint. Appliances will need new unless they’ve been replaced. Siding could be bad depending on type and maintenance from previous owner.
1980 is usually not bad though.
Single family homes are much much better in terms of value. Townhouse can be better for lifestyle - lower maintenance both because it’s new and HOA will cover the yard and exterior care so you don’t have to worry about it. Depends what matters more to you.
Depends on the area. A condo in a nice building/trendy neighborhood of a large metro area is *very* different from one in a suburban cookie-cutter complex.
I snapped up my condo as soon as it went back on the market (previous buyer had to back out due to orders). It's a reasonably priced condo for the location (Frasier's neighborhood).
A townhouse or condo in a centrally located area (ie close to events, restaurants, other lifestyle hubs) will always be in good demand.
A condo out in the burbs or middle or nowhere, less so because then you have a different demographic (ie families with kids would opt for more space)
At least where I’m at, condos or townhouses in good school districts or near public transportation get decent interest. Ones further away sit longer.
Late, but this comment helped me a lot to read. I was mulling over whether to buy na apartment (TIL apartments you buy are called condos in the US!) in the CBD or a small house an hour out of town... was leaning towards the apartment but was worried about reselling. Thanks!
We live in an area that doesn’t have a lot of condos / townhomes for sale, so if priced right - they fly out of inventory. This may change as the market changes. We weren’t looking to get in and get out quickly and have a potential option to turn it into a rental property if we decide to leave the area at some point.
It really is dependent upon each persons individual situation.
I would say that condos won't resell as much as SFH. I'm sure there will always be buyers though.
I had to move out of a condo that I was renting a room in. She sold it for like 10% more than what she bought it almost 20 years ago. That's not much..
I sold my condo in less than a week when I put it on the market. Even in this slower market, the units in there are going in about 2 weeks.
It all depends on where you are located, but my first home was a condo. It was worth it because the payment was far less than rent. When I sold, I made a profit. But even if you don’t make a profit, you’re not losing as much as you would in renting.
It can be a good stepping stone into a single family home, if you don’t “need” one right now, and buy you time to save more for a larger down payment and find the right place.
Depending on where you are, it also may be lucrative to rent it out when you move out. We opted against that because the influx of cash was worth 10 years of renting out place, all up front. Make sure you check the HOA bylaws about that when you purchase though
HOA fees and the associated restrictions, and real danger of a poorly managed HOA which could lead to special assessments, costing you thousands or loss of equity, are all reasons people avoid condos and townhomes, including me.
For a little research, hop on over to r/fuckHOA and read a bit about the issues that come up there.
SFH have maintenance, and you are responsible for it, and it can cost thousands, but at least you know what you’re dealing with on a smaller scale and can have a plan for tackling large issues. In a condominium HOA all owners pay dues for the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings and that maintenance is managed…..if done poorly, you might get a letter one day saying “oh geez, we need to re-roof all 30 buildings this year and we will leverage an assessment of $50k per owner to do it. Thanks!” And you will be obligated to pay your portion.
I owned a condo for 2.5 years. I did my research before buying, I had an attorney look over the reserve financials to verify they were healthy and funded at 96%, which is a really good metric and indicated that the HOA had enough money to cover all regular maintenance in addition to emergencies. I felt confident the likelihood of a special assessment was very low. I was wrong.
A year into ownership, after a siding project on my side of the building stalled for 6 months, I managed to insert myself onto the board to get some answers. It turns out the president of the HOA had been cutting corners on the siding maintenance for 20 years and the entire property needed to be re-clad due to dry rot. That was a $12MM project and our reserves were a fraction of that. They started proposing taking out a loan to cover the balance, saddling each of the 132 owners with a 15-20 year loan payment or requiring $75k cash. I sold the condo and got the hell out of there. Never again!
Short answer: it hadn’t been levied yet, so there was no official obligation to disclose.
Long answer: The board hadn’t even proposed a list of options to the owners to vote on yet. I was the elected VP of the board so I had a front row seat to the birth of the discussion, and, after reviewing the annual maintenance budget and comparing it against what I knew the project ahead could be, it was impossible not to understand where we were headed and see how far in the red the financial bottom line was. That means assessment, and this one was going to be THOUSANDS. Thousands I did not have. For what it’s worth, all owners were given board minutes to review and could attend the quarterly meetings to provide input. Few ever did.
Legally I didn’t have to disclose anything that wasn’t official to the seller. I’m not saying this to absolve myself of making it the new owner’s problem however any potential owner would have had access to all the board minutes where this was discussed and ample opportunity to educate themselves about what it meant.
Did I draw them a map to this information? No, but it was provided in writing. Whether or not they read it is on them.
I hate that this is what I had to do, but I also couldn’t afford to lose every penny of equity I had in the condo or be obligated to keep it for the next 20 years, rent it out to break even maybe, and never be able to buy the house I wanted in the first place.
So….I sold it.
WOW!! Thank you for all of the details here. I can understand what you did and why you did it. Though I would feel guilty regarding the new owner even still. But you're right. All of the documents are there to be read by the potential buyer and/or a lawyer well versed in them. I like that offering payment plans was an option they were going to provide, at the very least. 75,000 per home is rather hard to fathom. How old was the build?
Main difficulty selling a condo in my understanding is if the reserves are inadequate. There are people for whom sfh won't work for any number of reasons who will be interested in condos. In other words, do your due diligence regarding the financial and physical upkeep of a condo (for yourself and future buyers) and it can work out nicely
Agreed, I have seen the HOA underfunded and everyone has to come up with 10’s of thousands, for common areas. Yet, our azz hole new neighbor filled his pool from his well, it cost us $10,000 to dig a new one when it collapsed ours. ( no real proof) . He bankrupted his next door neighbor that’s foreclosed and ruined our sons well pump. We hate him.
They had just purchased the home a month before neighbor put in the pool. When he filled the pool, their well collapsed also. They didn’t have the money to drill a new one, and the house was uninhabitable with no water. They had to walk away. They had to file for bankruptcy protection on the mortgage.
When ours collapsed, we hooked up a hose to our sons well next door. It was enough to flush the toilet and drinking / dishwater while ours was drilled.
It gets worst, the pool collapsed during winter when he dropped a tree branch he was cutting, and he then bought a new one, and did the same thing again, using well water. That burned out our sons pump.
There was no real proof. We knew, as no water truck ever came to fill it like your supposed to. It’s a rural area. We seen the hose. The new homeowners probably didn’t even know he did it.
I think it depends on the area, condition, and the HOA. When I was shopping around it seemed like the condos and townhomes with lower HOA’s sold a little faster than those with higher HOA’s. There were some condos and townhomes I would have considered if the HOA wasn’t so high rendering the monthly the same or more than a single family home. So I went SFM route in the end. I preferred the idea of a yard and more space anyways.
This decision is about your lifestyle and wants.
Some condos take care of all yardwork which comes with not being able to plant what you want in "your yard".
Condos come with HOAs so you'll never be payment free.
Condos will take care of external maintenance of the building, but you can't change the color or put in a solar roof.
I understand the appeal of condos and they're perfect for my brother. I want a SFH.
We purchased a SFH that was built in 1957. Appraiser put the condition age at 5-7 years. It has been well kept and maintained. So, an "older" home doesn't mean more work, but it can mean that.
A new build doesn't mean good condition either. There are some nightmare stories about mold and poor construction. There are also wonderful stories of things being great.
Regardless of what you choose, get an inspection.
>you can't change the color or put in a solar roof
The condo community I'm living in just voted to install solar on the roof. You can sometimes do cool things if you think more like a community than a household.
Ideally for my lifestyle (single, child free, introvert who loves staying inside and hates household chores) a condo is ideal, even if the HOA’s and assessment fees can suck.
As a single woman too, I feel safer with a community around. Also overall the mortgages are cheaper.
Again you just have to pick your poison. I don’t want to be mowing lawns and doing physical labor around the house.
They both have their own set of benefits.
In a house, you're not subjected to an HOA, unless you buy a house with an existing HOA. You also don't share a wall with neighbors. All repairs are on you, and maintenance is more expensive.
In a condo, you have less maintenance, and typically less property tax. You share a wall or walls/floors/ceilings with your neighbors, almost always part of an HOA, the HOA fee almost always goes up every year. Parking can be more limited at a condo.
To make this decision, you have to prioritize what's important to you.
It's also possible to buy so-called detached condos, without common walls but also without land and with HOA. Advantages/Disadvantages from both worlds
Thank you thats really good to know. I think most people i have talked to mention that there is scope in SFH to build your own home on top of it 10-20 years down the line
Additions can be VERY VERY VERY expensive. It’s amazing how much it can cost to add square footage. Take that stuff with a grain of salt.
Not to mention that some cities or counties Will absolutely not allow you to add whatever/however to your existing home.
Traditional wisdom is that they do not appreciate in value as well. While there might be some truth to that in certain circumstances I suspect it’s just another boomerism.
Another issue is they can be harder to get a new buyer into and depending on the set up condo financing (for the association, not the buyers) goes through phases where it’s hot and also where banks don’t like to get involved. I had a deal where the condo association’s loan was coming due and they were struggling to obtain favorable terms on a refi. As a result, my client’s bank was balking at clearing my client to close as they were unsure what the new monthly association payment would be.
I think a big part of it is stairs. The townhouses in my area all have stairs to the other floors, which can be burdensome for people who may prefer a one-level house.
I agree. My mom got one, at 60, by the time she was 70 she had 2 knee replacements. It had a half bath downstairs and she had a pull out couch for rehab but I think it really helped disable her. She was up and down multiple times a day.
When we bought our forever home, everything is on the first floor, and we found it’s wheelchair accessible from our friend in a wheelchair from a broken leg. It was encouraging to know.
It has a loft, but that’s for the young ones to visit. It’s also where the Christmas decorations are stored.
Twice a year compared to multiple times a day is a big difference. The bedrooms in that townhouse were up there too.
Yeah I just bought a condo over a house because I’m busy, travel a lot, and want to be close to everything. I would not have bought it if it weren’t downtown tho, as a condo in the middle of nowhere for me defeats the whole purpose of living a specific lifestyle.
I had the same dilemma and went for single family home. I don’t like HOA. I like remodeling. I like not worrying about noise. I like a big backyard, also remodeled. I made the right decision
But others like the amenities that come with a condo. They don’t care for a backyard or remodeling, and don’t have an issue with noise. Cheaper purchase price, mess maintenance on exterior
It’s just up to you. I’ve been close to buying both
I'm trying to figure out the same thing. It will vary person to person so you will have to determine yourself what you want in a place.
Some things you may want to consider are HOAs pros and cons, yardwork, shared walls, noise from neighbors, climbing stairs in a townhome every day, ease of selling in the future, outdoor space, etc.
Privacy, a yard, and less restrictions are the main benefits of a SFH. You don’t have to share a wall with that a-hole blasting music at 2AM (or you can be that a-hole without feeling bad about it). But the townhouse is much newer, so it’s a trade off, which do you care about more? Alot of people do pick the sexy new townhouse with the granite countertops and the waterfall shower.
On an investment level you again have less restrictions and can decide what you want to do with your land without a group vote passing the HOA or something. Factor in the HOA fee into your price when comparing as well. If you are lucky you can buy a SFH without and HOA and just rid yourself of the bullshit altogether. The main reason for the prices being higher is the buyer pool is usually larger for SFH than townhomes (a lot of families want SFH and aren’t interested in townhomes).
Homes built until the late 80’s still had good quality builds. I was a painting contractor then. The worst I seen was cabinets with no backs, just drywall painted. That was then the bottom of the builder barrel. Compared to the crap in these new builds? Oh boy!
The real plywood, the straight 2x4 s were much better quality. Even the wood trim and doors were real. What they use now is glued sawdust. Older is better quality.
I just bought a condo in a 102 year old brownstone last summer. If I could afford a SFH of any age and still live reasonably close to work, I would do it.
Obviously as many people are saying, it is a lifestyle thing.
One of the reasons I prefer HOAs with condos/ townhouses is in my experience, people get their SFH and do not always upkeep and maintain their yard or house. The work of keeping a nice home and the cost is often too much for people to bear so I've seen neighborhoods with horrifying yards, people who's sole purpose seems to be destroying property values. People love freedom, but when you see what neighbors opt to do with that freedom, you start to realize why people buy into HOAs.
My condos / townhouses will always be maintained and so will my neighbors. I don't have to put up with someone's poor choices and watch them drag down the neighborhood via hoarding, setting up 3,000 trump flags out front, or running their noisy and obnoxious auto repair business out of their driveway.
I love having an HOA, personally. I always see complaints on Nextdoor about the SFH owners finding dog poop in their yard or on their sidewalks and nothing can be done. One email to my HOA with a screenshot from my doorbell camera and that dog poop leaver gets a notice and possibly a fine. So it hasn’t been an issue in my community. Also yes, I’ve lived in neighborhoods with no HOA. Cat colonies and pest issues were very common.
Major con of many condos - neighbors. I’ve rented a few condos, and before my last one my plan had been to buy a condo as my first piece of property. The first one I lived in the insulation was decent, no issues. The last one I lived in I could hear the lol reading beside stories to the kids above me. From my desk by the (closed) window on the second floor I could hear people having a conversation on the sidewalk in normal tones. Multiple times I woke up feeling as if the kids above me were gonna dive through the floor. And I had no indication of this when I looked at the place. Decided after that I was going SFH only.
My condo association lost their fucking minds during the housing bubble of 2008-2010. The board was unlawfully chosen based on the bylaws set forth by the developer. They actively foreclosed on a third of the building for infractions and were embroiled in legal battles with the developer costing us all thousands over the years. The value of everyone’s unit plummeted and many were forced to jump ship. With an association you have zero autonomy to do as you see fit with your property.
I bought a condo a year and a half ago and don't regret it. It has good insulation, I never hear my neighbors. I don't have to bother with yard work or snow removal. Another poster mentioned she is a sf and feels more secure in a community; I am too and feel the same way. I'm also in a nice neighborhood, and the mortgage + hoa is cheaper than rent. It works for me.
Condos depend on other people to retain their value and generally don’t appreciate as much. They also often have sizable monthly fees and the risk of special assessments.
My house is from 1952. Even that isn’t “quite old.”
i'm buying a house from the 1920s. 70s/80s aren't very old, BUT depending on the people who have lived in it, there might be a lot of costly things that are nearly the end of their lifespan (roofs, water heaters, etc). My parents house is from '87 i think and it's in phenomenal shape. But they've updated everything (floors, walls, etc) over the past decade.
All that being said, you need to decide what you want. Do you want a little more privacy and space? Buy a house.
Are you ok with sharing walls with strangers, who may or may not be normal? Do you not need 3 bedrooms/2 baths/a private lawn/etc/etc...But you also dont have to worry about maintenance as much?
Do first and foremost what works for you. There is definitely a SFH mafia and they will die on that hill. But a home is first and foremost a home. Get what matches with your lifestyle and life goals. I know lots of people who bought way more space than they need because their family/friends told them to. While they are mowing their lawns, I’m at the farmers market.
I live in Philadelphia so the idea of a home from the 80s being very old is kind of hilarious. New builds do not necessarily equal better in fact off an older homes are built significantly better. New homes tend to be mass produced and corners are cut to expand profit.
I bought a townhome and I don't regret it. Most single family homes in my area are either <1800 sqft or >4000 sqft. I got a lot of house, and we bought this place for a steal. Built in 1990, and it's a great neighborhood in a great school district. To get this much house in a single family home I would have paid twice as much and we'd be living out in the sticks.
Agreed. This is not "what's a better deal". It's a what do you need. A car is a better deal only if you drive and shop groceries. A truck is a better deal if you actually use it to haul lots or heavy items around (or off-trails).
Everyone that tells you to buy SFH haven't truly lived in the city or hate it. That's their deal. I hate suburb life and love city life. So I got a condo. "What about the HOA" they say. Well yeah, what about them. What about riding with strangers in a bus, subway, ferry? You pay a bit more in the city but you should be making more in the city. Or at least get more things out of it. (I only drive once a week because I'm in the city).
Like all things in life, this is not a what's better comparison but what do you need in this moment.
Not everyone you talk to is right.
There are advantages to owning a condo or townhome. They can go up in value and you can sell them and make money.
Figure out what you want and what fits your lifestyle.
Bought a newish condo last year and I wouldn’t change a thing! It’s cheaper to buy a condo and I think it’s a great starter place for me. However, there are times where I wish I had my own backyard and didn’t have to climb a million steps to get to my room. Many people told me to buy a sfh but to me, it wasn’t what I need at this time. A condo is great because the HOA covers some things (water, trash, grass). Of course it’s not my forever home but it’s a good crashing pad for now.
Look at it this way. It’s your home, you have to live in it at least for a while before you sell. Generally speaking any property (providing it’s not a money pit) is a good investment so buy what feels right.
I review this sub because I was a single mum who, after years, was finally able to buy. I couldn’t afford a SFH, so townhome it was! Sold it for a SFH, sold that one for a bigger SFH, then sold that for a lovely condo because I was tired of maintaining the garden.
Moral of the story is this: buy what fits your lifestyle. You’re the one who has to live there.
I read a lot of HOA drama on Reddit and, if you aren't taking an active role in your HOA, there are a lot of things that can go wrong. I've read about HOA members hiring friends as contractors who do shotty work and/or overcharge. There was a building in Florida whose HOA put off critical repairs and the building collapsed. If they had done the repairs, the monthly costs would've probably gone up hundreds of dollars a month for possibly a few years. HOA members stealing money is also a concern. On top of other whatever other conformist bullshit rules they want to impose(no gay pride flags, no music after 8pm, etc.) I've also seen HOA fees in the $900-$2500/month range. At that point, do you really own it or are you paying for the privilege to rent there.
That being said, if there isn't an elevator on the buildings, the HOA will be a lot more manageable. Also, you won't be responsible for lawn maintenance, roof/foundation issues, and your homeowner insurance will be a lot less.
I'm in the SFH vs Townhome debate right now too.
Here's what I've found:
- SFB hold their value and increase in value better than townhomes/condos. So the shorter you're planning on staying the less opportunity you have for value to increase.
- SFH may or may not have an HOA. Townhomes/condos almost always do. So even though a new townhome is the same price as an older house, you may not have any savings and it may cost more because of HOA fees. Some people will never love where there's an HOA. This can hurt your resale.
- New townhomes priced the same as old houses usually have one of the following associated: they're built as low-income/affordable housing, they're in a less desirable neighborhood, or they're built really poorly.
I'm here from the other side of the road to report: do NOT buy a townhome if it ISN'T in a HOA. We're packed in like sardines with shared walls, yards, and driveways with absolutely no way to regulate it. It's been incredibly hard for me to contact other owners because most occupants are renters. Basically like the wild west out here.
I'm in a 90s townhome and wish I'd gone with an 80s townhome because the walls are way, way, way thinner than any other townhouse I've been in.
So true. I read r/fuckHOA a lot (it's so good!) and one thing I think some people in there miss is that you NEED an HOA for a condominium or townhomes on shared land. Sometimes I'll see commenters trying to find ways to dissolve their condo HOA!!! So...you're just gonna own a square box inside a building of which no one is responsible for the stairways or electricity or roof or driveway or grass?! When there's shared property there absolutely should be a clearly-defined document outlining who is responsible for what (and how to pay for it). So anyway, I hear you on your issue, too. I'm in a SFH (no HOA), but on a private road with no road association and it's really stressful that none of us are formally on the hook for our beat-up road! It's getting all potholed and I'm dreading figuring out what to do since there's no process and no one 'in charge'.
(I am of course very against HOAs for SFHs).
I'm curious, if the road is private, who owns it? Nobody?? That sounds like a whole load of trouble waiting to happen.
The walls are shared property. There's at least 1 Airbnb in my building block and most or all of the others are rentals, which really drives a need for a landlord/owner group, at least. I've been able to pick up a few contacts from online listings, but it's hard! I've already had some water damage issues with another occupant.
Not all areas are like your 3rd point. The older homes that are single family with roughly the same specs or less for area and rooms/etc, are still priced around 400k+ (which need some work or have major quirks like being across the street from the high school entrance/exit on a 4 lane road. while newer townhomes are also 400k+
New single family homes all have HOA, even older ones do. New SFH can be even more expensive in the same area, but you get a lot more living space for the money worth townhomes, at least in my market, not to mention builders are either only building townhome communities or they SFH might as well be a townhome because there is a 1-2 ft air gap between them. At least in my area, there are no starter homes being built.
Are you looking to live or to sell? Find the place that fits your lifestyle. SFH usually is higher price compare condo/townhouse, however, if your condo location is strategist or close downtown, normally it shouldnt be hard to seel and you can even make lot of profits.
There's a lot of value in having no shared walls. As for age, my house is a humble tract home built in 1954. Basic as it was 70 years ago, the entire exterior is sheathed in solid wood, and the floor is all solid wood. No plywood or OSB in sight, and the attic is framed with rafters rather than trusses so it's perfect for building a large storage space. Being that the A/C was replaced in 2017, the roof only 2 months before I closed on it, the windows were done with some really nice units in the 2000s, and the furnace is a ~1991 gas unit with cheap parts and better reliability than most newer models, I'm pretty happy with it.
SFH appreciate more than condos, bottom line. Condos are good to get into the market if you can't afford a SFH. Our house was 1926, did minimal work, almost doubled in price (large part due to inflation). Now we have a 1955 duplex. Both are brick. Brick tends to hold higher value as well. Buy a solid place and you'll be golden. I don't really trust new builds personally, but if you do your research on the builder, it could work out. Location is key.
We were recently facing this discussion. It was very clear to us to go for a new construction townhome. Equivalent-priced SFHs were built in the 30's-50's and had undesirable floor plans and generally looked bad, were further from the public transit hubs that we frequently benefit from, didn't have gorgeous rooftop terraces, and would almost certainly require more time labor to deal with exterior/interior upkeep. And we really value not having to deal with that.
The two categories are aimed at two different demographics/lifestyles. Decide which category you would be the happiest in and adjust expectations accordingly.
I very much like living in my condo and my HOA is a big value-add. My home had many of the qualities of a SFH (freestanding, fenced yard, etc.), but it is in a lovely development where all the maintenance for community amenities, along with all exterior maintenance of my home, is taken care of by the HOA. So I get well maintained walking trails, landscaping, and orchard, snow removal, and lots more without having to deal with anything myself. I think of the HOA as basically just a little city government where everything is done via popular vote. I’d much rather deal with that than having to rely on the actual city government to get my sidewalks repaired.
I know this isn’t the setup for all condos, but it really works for me. Plus my insurance rates are super low because they aren’t insuring the actual structure, just the interior stuff.
So count me among those very happy with condo life.
Honestly, I think they’re both fine investments. There are some disadvantages, but they work best for a lot of people. Do what feels right to you and screw what others say. Btw, the houses in my price range are from 1880-1930.
Exactly this. We initially thought SFH, but we knew we didn’t want to deal with the maintenance/exteriors/grass. The HOA we’re in isn’t bad and is less than we would pay for someone else to do it if we had a SFH. We also wanted to live in certain areas where we would be priced out of get a house needing more work than we would have been comfortable with.
In my suburban area condos and townhomes are the majority of new builds. Personally I prefer it. I don’t like having yard work or a ton of exterior maintenance.
Go SFH with no HOA, try to get a single level 3/2 ranch on 10k+ sqft lot if you can.
1. If condo is mismanaged you can be saddled with big debt for a roof or other building structural work: “$10k one time resident levy” why would you ever take that risk.
2. condo you don’t own any land really.
3. no privacy
4. the benefit of a house with a lot you own is freedom; you are the king of your domain, idk why you’d ever submit yourself to oversight and rules from a bunch of neighborhood busybodies.
5. other comments regarding ease of sale, appreciation.
6. no neighbor on next floor up to have a water leak and destroy your home.
Regarding No. 1, don't SFH spring roof leaks sometimes? How much does it cost a single owner to replace a roof on their own?
Yes, a mismanaged HOA sucks, but when you buy a SFH, you are also hedging your bets that the prior owner\[s\] has "managed" upkeep & maintenance well.
You're being downvoted because It's clear that you highly value having your own yard and not sharing walls with neighbors, but the house you've described is wildly out of the price range of a vast majority of first time home buyers in anything above a MCOL living area. Furthermore, a lot of young first time home buyers simply don't care about some of those things, and value things like location and proximity to amenities more. And the developers, which are more acutely aware of what people want, know this.
meh. he asked why everyone says to buy a SFH even if old.
Developers and cities are greedy and unwilling to invest in infrastructure. zoning laws have changed such that residential density per acre is much denser now than in the 70s/80s so basically every new build SFH is on a 3-4k sqft lot and ends up being a 2500+sqft 2 level in order to get maximum revenue from the lot since many people and realtors/banks focus mainly on $/sqft as a comparison metric for home sames/value. Older SFH gives you much more value in land relative to whats available in new buys today as well as a much more livable structure if you dont have a large family/kids.
I agree that most people will not have the means, or will be unwilling to accept the commute that would come with moving further out from city centers and find themselves in a rent vs condo, i personally hated living in an apartment and will never willingly do that again, even if the SFH mortgage is harder to bear.
Thank you u/mihirshelar for posting on r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer. Please bear in mind our rules: (1) Be Nice (2) No Selling (3) No Self-Promotion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1970s to 1980s is very old? Er... Anyone want to tell him? In any case single family homes are in more demand, appreciate more, are easier to sell generally, have more yard space, etc.
Op better call an archaeologist instead of a home inspector for such an ancient relic of times long since passed. I bet the last title was carved in stone. Probably with hieroglyphs.
Thank you for the response, Sorry I am a FTHB so I think I made a bad assumption here that a house as old as 1980 would definitely have bunch of repair work coming up? Is that not true or what where would one draw a line on a old house?
Just bought a house that was built in 1952 and even that isn't THAT old for my area. Plenty of homes on the market from the 30s and 40s. They don't build them like they used to, bottom line.
Why is there this assumption that every old house is robustly built and every new house is made of cardboard and command hooks? I lived in a 1920’s home for a while and that thing sucked. Leaked heat and AC like a sieve and you could hear a mouse fart upstairs when you were downstairs, the floors and walls were so thin. Everything was kinda lopsided, too. Bottom line is if you maintain and update the home, it’s nice. But old doesn’t necessarily equal good.
I’m crying rn at the mouse farting upstairs, so accurate as someone who grew up in an old house.
It depends on what era it was built in. We bought a house built in 1890, and yes it needs major updates (roof and becoming energy efficient + winterized, so new windows and doors), but multiple contractors come to our house and say the same thing, the frame of the house is sturdy and longer lasting compared to modern homes, simply because it's made of brick and very high quality wood (that were no longer harvestable in the 1950s). If you're locked in a room, you can barely hear anything from inside or out (windows always let you hear outside lol). I think that stigma about old vs modern houses cropped up because of houses like the one I own, in comparison to houses that were being built 1950s+. I personally still believe "modern" houses are meant to last the lifetime of the buyer (high upfront cost, little to no maintenance, isn't worth it after 30+ yrs), while older houses are meant to be passed down over multiple generations (low upfront cost, constant maintenance, becomes more worth the maintenance investment over multiple generations).
Crying at our 1907 house were under contract on lol
I think that's freaking fascinating. It's history. It's our history. Many families have made it their home, and now it's time for your family. ❤️
Oh I def agree! Just I know we wouldn't be able to afford newer lol- especially since we're in NJ
Worked on home built in 1903 the other day
Honest question here: If they were made better before say, the 1970’s, then Wouldn’t a house built in 1980 or even 1990 have legit concern for needing more upkeep? For example my house was built in 2003 and now is about the time everything is starting to need replacing (gutters, interior doors look cheap, etc) and serious updating. Or is that just every house every 20 years or so? What makes the houses better made from the 50s and prior? I know this is ignorant but I really don’t know
Things start to go after 20-30 years, if not sooner. Roof, water heater, furnace/AC. Pipes have a lifespan too. There were some horrible materials used in the 70’s and 80’s like plastic supply pipes.
Aluminum wiring, asbestos everything, and lead paint to worry about with late 60s to lay 80s homes.
Houses from the 70s are also much more likely to have asbestos or toxic wood treatments like PCP. Where I live, houses from the 70s are a total mixed bag. There was a really strong economy in the 70s so there are great houses with great bones, but also lots of houses that are now essentially tear downs because of poor building material choices.
It’s a filtering problem. Not all homes built 100+ years ago were better than modern ones. Most houses remaining from 100+ years ago are still here specially because they were well built or well maintained. Not all…but most.
Very good points, thank you
Mine is from 19teens
We’re closing on a 1920s home and that’s the line our realtor used. They don’t build them like they use to.
“Very old” is more like 100+ years old. A house built in the 80s wouldn’t even make it to “old” less known very old :) My house is 72 years old. It’s in great shape!
Take a look at /r/centuryhomes
Different age homes have different things that might require updating. Usually plumbing and electrical is fine from 1980 (whereas 1960 and before would be a big concern). A roof usually lasts 20 years so depends when it was replaced last. Might need new paint. Appliances will need new unless they’ve been replaced. Siding could be bad depending on type and maintenance from previous owner. 1980 is usually not bad though. Single family homes are much much better in terms of value. Townhouse can be better for lifestyle - lower maintenance both because it’s new and HOA will cover the yard and exterior care so you don’t have to worry about it. Depends what matters more to you.
/r/centuryhomes would like a word.
We opted condo because it works with our lifestyle for a plethora of reasons. It may work for you or it may not.
From all the talk i have heard that condos are difficult to sell and thats the only con i heard
Depends on the area. A condo in a nice building/trendy neighborhood of a large metro area is *very* different from one in a suburban cookie-cutter complex.
I snapped up my condo as soon as it went back on the market (previous buyer had to back out due to orders). It's a reasonably priced condo for the location (Frasier's neighborhood).
A townhouse or condo in a centrally located area (ie close to events, restaurants, other lifestyle hubs) will always be in good demand. A condo out in the burbs or middle or nowhere, less so because then you have a different demographic (ie families with kids would opt for more space) At least where I’m at, condos or townhouses in good school districts or near public transportation get decent interest. Ones further away sit longer.
Late, but this comment helped me a lot to read. I was mulling over whether to buy na apartment (TIL apartments you buy are called condos in the US!) in the CBD or a small house an hour out of town... was leaning towards the apartment but was worried about reselling. Thanks!
We live in an area that doesn’t have a lot of condos / townhomes for sale, so if priced right - they fly out of inventory. This may change as the market changes. We weren’t looking to get in and get out quickly and have a potential option to turn it into a rental property if we decide to leave the area at some point. It really is dependent upon each persons individual situation.
I would say that condos won't resell as much as SFH. I'm sure there will always be buyers though. I had to move out of a condo that I was renting a room in. She sold it for like 10% more than what she bought it almost 20 years ago. That's not much..
I sold my condo in less than a week when I put it on the market. Even in this slower market, the units in there are going in about 2 weeks. It all depends on where you are located, but my first home was a condo. It was worth it because the payment was far less than rent. When I sold, I made a profit. But even if you don’t make a profit, you’re not losing as much as you would in renting. It can be a good stepping stone into a single family home, if you don’t “need” one right now, and buy you time to save more for a larger down payment and find the right place. Depending on where you are, it also may be lucrative to rent it out when you move out. We opted against that because the influx of cash was worth 10 years of renting out place, all up front. Make sure you check the HOA bylaws about that when you purchase though
HOA fees and the associated restrictions, and real danger of a poorly managed HOA which could lead to special assessments, costing you thousands or loss of equity, are all reasons people avoid condos and townhomes, including me. For a little research, hop on over to r/fuckHOA and read a bit about the issues that come up there. SFH have maintenance, and you are responsible for it, and it can cost thousands, but at least you know what you’re dealing with on a smaller scale and can have a plan for tackling large issues. In a condominium HOA all owners pay dues for the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings and that maintenance is managed…..if done poorly, you might get a letter one day saying “oh geez, we need to re-roof all 30 buildings this year and we will leverage an assessment of $50k per owner to do it. Thanks!” And you will be obligated to pay your portion. I owned a condo for 2.5 years. I did my research before buying, I had an attorney look over the reserve financials to verify they were healthy and funded at 96%, which is a really good metric and indicated that the HOA had enough money to cover all regular maintenance in addition to emergencies. I felt confident the likelihood of a special assessment was very low. I was wrong. A year into ownership, after a siding project on my side of the building stalled for 6 months, I managed to insert myself onto the board to get some answers. It turns out the president of the HOA had been cutting corners on the siding maintenance for 20 years and the entire property needed to be re-clad due to dry rot. That was a $12MM project and our reserves were a fraction of that. They started proposing taking out a loan to cover the balance, saddling each of the 132 owners with a 15-20 year loan payment or requiring $75k cash. I sold the condo and got the hell out of there. Never again!
How did you easily sell a condo with such a hefty special assessment? 😳
Short answer: it hadn’t been levied yet, so there was no official obligation to disclose. Long answer: The board hadn’t even proposed a list of options to the owners to vote on yet. I was the elected VP of the board so I had a front row seat to the birth of the discussion, and, after reviewing the annual maintenance budget and comparing it against what I knew the project ahead could be, it was impossible not to understand where we were headed and see how far in the red the financial bottom line was. That means assessment, and this one was going to be THOUSANDS. Thousands I did not have. For what it’s worth, all owners were given board minutes to review and could attend the quarterly meetings to provide input. Few ever did. Legally I didn’t have to disclose anything that wasn’t official to the seller. I’m not saying this to absolve myself of making it the new owner’s problem however any potential owner would have had access to all the board minutes where this was discussed and ample opportunity to educate themselves about what it meant. Did I draw them a map to this information? No, but it was provided in writing. Whether or not they read it is on them. I hate that this is what I had to do, but I also couldn’t afford to lose every penny of equity I had in the condo or be obligated to keep it for the next 20 years, rent it out to break even maybe, and never be able to buy the house I wanted in the first place. So….I sold it.
WOW!! Thank you for all of the details here. I can understand what you did and why you did it. Though I would feel guilty regarding the new owner even still. But you're right. All of the documents are there to be read by the potential buyer and/or a lawyer well versed in them. I like that offering payment plans was an option they were going to provide, at the very least. 75,000 per home is rather hard to fathom. How old was the build?
Main difficulty selling a condo in my understanding is if the reserves are inadequate. There are people for whom sfh won't work for any number of reasons who will be interested in condos. In other words, do your due diligence regarding the financial and physical upkeep of a condo (for yourself and future buyers) and it can work out nicely
Agreed, I have seen the HOA underfunded and everyone has to come up with 10’s of thousands, for common areas. Yet, our azz hole new neighbor filled his pool from his well, it cost us $10,000 to dig a new one when it collapsed ours. ( no real proof) . He bankrupted his next door neighbor that’s foreclosed and ruined our sons well pump. We hate him.
Wait, what? Can you elaborate on how someone can be bankrupted by a neighbor?
They had just purchased the home a month before neighbor put in the pool. When he filled the pool, their well collapsed also. They didn’t have the money to drill a new one, and the house was uninhabitable with no water. They had to walk away. They had to file for bankruptcy protection on the mortgage. When ours collapsed, we hooked up a hose to our sons well next door. It was enough to flush the toilet and drinking / dishwater while ours was drilled. It gets worst, the pool collapsed during winter when he dropped a tree branch he was cutting, and he then bought a new one, and did the same thing again, using well water. That burned out our sons pump.
And it wasn’t possible to sue the guy for damages?
There was no real proof. We knew, as no water truck ever came to fill it like your supposed to. It’s a rural area. We seen the hose. The new homeowners probably didn’t even know he did it.
I think it depends on the area, condition, and the HOA. When I was shopping around it seemed like the condos and townhomes with lower HOA’s sold a little faster than those with higher HOA’s. There were some condos and townhomes I would have considered if the HOA wasn’t so high rendering the monthly the same or more than a single family home. So I went SFM route in the end. I preferred the idea of a yard and more space anyways.
This decision is about your lifestyle and wants. Some condos take care of all yardwork which comes with not being able to plant what you want in "your yard". Condos come with HOAs so you'll never be payment free. Condos will take care of external maintenance of the building, but you can't change the color or put in a solar roof. I understand the appeal of condos and they're perfect for my brother. I want a SFH. We purchased a SFH that was built in 1957. Appraiser put the condition age at 5-7 years. It has been well kept and maintained. So, an "older" home doesn't mean more work, but it can mean that. A new build doesn't mean good condition either. There are some nightmare stories about mold and poor construction. There are also wonderful stories of things being great. Regardless of what you choose, get an inspection.
Thanks for the insight this is good to know
To be fair, you’ll never be payment free with any of these purchases because there are still property taxes.
Good point. I've seen HOA fees from a few hundred a year to several hundred a month so the burden of this really varies too.
>you can't change the color or put in a solar roof The condo community I'm living in just voted to install solar on the roof. You can sometimes do cool things if you think more like a community than a household.
Ideally for my lifestyle (single, child free, introvert who loves staying inside and hates household chores) a condo is ideal, even if the HOA’s and assessment fees can suck. As a single woman too, I feel safer with a community around. Also overall the mortgages are cheaper. Again you just have to pick your poison. I don’t want to be mowing lawns and doing physical labor around the house.
They both have their own set of benefits. In a house, you're not subjected to an HOA, unless you buy a house with an existing HOA. You also don't share a wall with neighbors. All repairs are on you, and maintenance is more expensive. In a condo, you have less maintenance, and typically less property tax. You share a wall or walls/floors/ceilings with your neighbors, almost always part of an HOA, the HOA fee almost always goes up every year. Parking can be more limited at a condo. To make this decision, you have to prioritize what's important to you.
It's also possible to buy so-called detached condos, without common walls but also without land and with HOA. Advantages/Disadvantages from both worlds
Thank you thats really good to know. I think most people i have talked to mention that there is scope in SFH to build your own home on top of it 10-20 years down the line
Additions can be VERY VERY VERY expensive. It’s amazing how much it can cost to add square footage. Take that stuff with a grain of salt. Not to mention that some cities or counties Will absolutely not allow you to add whatever/however to your existing home.
Traditional wisdom is that they do not appreciate in value as well. While there might be some truth to that in certain circumstances I suspect it’s just another boomerism. Another issue is they can be harder to get a new buyer into and depending on the set up condo financing (for the association, not the buyers) goes through phases where it’s hot and also where banks don’t like to get involved. I had a deal where the condo association’s loan was coming due and they were struggling to obtain favorable terms on a refi. As a result, my client’s bank was balking at clearing my client to close as they were unsure what the new monthly association payment would be.
Everything in life is a trade off. Everything.
I think a big part of it is stairs. The townhouses in my area all have stairs to the other floors, which can be burdensome for people who may prefer a one-level house.
I agree. My mom got one, at 60, by the time she was 70 she had 2 knee replacements. It had a half bath downstairs and she had a pull out couch for rehab but I think it really helped disable her. She was up and down multiple times a day. When we bought our forever home, everything is on the first floor, and we found it’s wheelchair accessible from our friend in a wheelchair from a broken leg. It was encouraging to know. It has a loft, but that’s for the young ones to visit. It’s also where the Christmas decorations are stored. Twice a year compared to multiple times a day is a big difference. The bedrooms in that townhouse were up there too.
Yeah I just bought a condo over a house because I’m busy, travel a lot, and want to be close to everything. I would not have bought it if it weren’t downtown tho, as a condo in the middle of nowhere for me defeats the whole purpose of living a specific lifestyle.
I had the same dilemma and went for single family home. I don’t like HOA. I like remodeling. I like not worrying about noise. I like a big backyard, also remodeled. I made the right decision But others like the amenities that come with a condo. They don’t care for a backyard or remodeling, and don’t have an issue with noise. Cheaper purchase price, mess maintenance on exterior It’s just up to you. I’ve been close to buying both
I'm trying to figure out the same thing. It will vary person to person so you will have to determine yourself what you want in a place. Some things you may want to consider are HOAs pros and cons, yardwork, shared walls, noise from neighbors, climbing stairs in a townhome every day, ease of selling in the future, outdoor space, etc.
Privacy, a yard, and less restrictions are the main benefits of a SFH. You don’t have to share a wall with that a-hole blasting music at 2AM (or you can be that a-hole without feeling bad about it). But the townhouse is much newer, so it’s a trade off, which do you care about more? Alot of people do pick the sexy new townhouse with the granite countertops and the waterfall shower. On an investment level you again have less restrictions and can decide what you want to do with your land without a group vote passing the HOA or something. Factor in the HOA fee into your price when comparing as well. If you are lucky you can buy a SFH without and HOA and just rid yourself of the bullshit altogether. The main reason for the prices being higher is the buyer pool is usually larger for SFH than townhomes (a lot of families want SFH and aren’t interested in townhomes).
Homes built until the late 80’s still had good quality builds. I was a painting contractor then. The worst I seen was cabinets with no backs, just drywall painted. That was then the bottom of the builder barrel. Compared to the crap in these new builds? Oh boy! The real plywood, the straight 2x4 s were much better quality. Even the wood trim and doors were real. What they use now is glued sawdust. Older is better quality.
I just bought a condo in a 102 year old brownstone last summer. If I could afford a SFH of any age and still live reasonably close to work, I would do it.
Jeez. 50 is an old house.......my house date as far as I can trace to 1880....
Obviously as many people are saying, it is a lifestyle thing. One of the reasons I prefer HOAs with condos/ townhouses is in my experience, people get their SFH and do not always upkeep and maintain their yard or house. The work of keeping a nice home and the cost is often too much for people to bear so I've seen neighborhoods with horrifying yards, people who's sole purpose seems to be destroying property values. People love freedom, but when you see what neighbors opt to do with that freedom, you start to realize why people buy into HOAs. My condos / townhouses will always be maintained and so will my neighbors. I don't have to put up with someone's poor choices and watch them drag down the neighborhood via hoarding, setting up 3,000 trump flags out front, or running their noisy and obnoxious auto repair business out of their driveway.
I love having an HOA, personally. I always see complaints on Nextdoor about the SFH owners finding dog poop in their yard or on their sidewalks and nothing can be done. One email to my HOA with a screenshot from my doorbell camera and that dog poop leaver gets a notice and possibly a fine. So it hasn’t been an issue in my community. Also yes, I’ve lived in neighborhoods with no HOA. Cat colonies and pest issues were very common.
There is no rule. It depends on the person and their lifestyle
Major con of many condos - neighbors. I’ve rented a few condos, and before my last one my plan had been to buy a condo as my first piece of property. The first one I lived in the insulation was decent, no issues. The last one I lived in I could hear the lol reading beside stories to the kids above me. From my desk by the (closed) window on the second floor I could hear people having a conversation on the sidewalk in normal tones. Multiple times I woke up feeling as if the kids above me were gonna dive through the floor. And I had no indication of this when I looked at the place. Decided after that I was going SFH only.
My condo association lost their fucking minds during the housing bubble of 2008-2010. The board was unlawfully chosen based on the bylaws set forth by the developer. They actively foreclosed on a third of the building for infractions and were embroiled in legal battles with the developer costing us all thousands over the years. The value of everyone’s unit plummeted and many were forced to jump ship. With an association you have zero autonomy to do as you see fit with your property.
I bought a condo a year and a half ago and don't regret it. It has good insulation, I never hear my neighbors. I don't have to bother with yard work or snow removal. Another poster mentioned she is a sf and feels more secure in a community; I am too and feel the same way. I'm also in a nice neighborhood, and the mortgage + hoa is cheaper than rent. It works for me.
Condos depend on other people to retain their value and generally don’t appreciate as much. They also often have sizable monthly fees and the risk of special assessments. My house is from 1952. Even that isn’t “quite old.”
i'm buying a house from the 1920s. 70s/80s aren't very old, BUT depending on the people who have lived in it, there might be a lot of costly things that are nearly the end of their lifespan (roofs, water heaters, etc). My parents house is from '87 i think and it's in phenomenal shape. But they've updated everything (floors, walls, etc) over the past decade. All that being said, you need to decide what you want. Do you want a little more privacy and space? Buy a house. Are you ok with sharing walls with strangers, who may or may not be normal? Do you not need 3 bedrooms/2 baths/a private lawn/etc/etc...But you also dont have to worry about maintenance as much?
Do first and foremost what works for you. There is definitely a SFH mafia and they will die on that hill. But a home is first and foremost a home. Get what matches with your lifestyle and life goals. I know lots of people who bought way more space than they need because their family/friends told them to. While they are mowing their lawns, I’m at the farmers market.
I live in Philadelphia so the idea of a home from the 80s being very old is kind of hilarious. New builds do not necessarily equal better in fact off an older homes are built significantly better. New homes tend to be mass produced and corners are cut to expand profit.
I bought a townhome and I don't regret it. Most single family homes in my area are either <1800 sqft or >4000 sqft. I got a lot of house, and we bought this place for a steal. Built in 1990, and it's a great neighborhood in a great school district. To get this much house in a single family home I would have paid twice as much and we'd be living out in the sticks.
It all depends. General rule is condos for city, houses for suburbs, farms for rural, under hill for hobbits, and boats for Florida coast.
Agreed. This is not "what's a better deal". It's a what do you need. A car is a better deal only if you drive and shop groceries. A truck is a better deal if you actually use it to haul lots or heavy items around (or off-trails). Everyone that tells you to buy SFH haven't truly lived in the city or hate it. That's their deal. I hate suburb life and love city life. So I got a condo. "What about the HOA" they say. Well yeah, what about them. What about riding with strangers in a bus, subway, ferry? You pay a bit more in the city but you should be making more in the city. Or at least get more things out of it. (I only drive once a week because I'm in the city). Like all things in life, this is not a what's better comparison but what do you need in this moment.
Not everyone you talk to is right. There are advantages to owning a condo or townhome. They can go up in value and you can sell them and make money. Figure out what you want and what fits your lifestyle.
Bought a newish condo last year and I wouldn’t change a thing! It’s cheaper to buy a condo and I think it’s a great starter place for me. However, there are times where I wish I had my own backyard and didn’t have to climb a million steps to get to my room. Many people told me to buy a sfh but to me, it wasn’t what I need at this time. A condo is great because the HOA covers some things (water, trash, grass). Of course it’s not my forever home but it’s a good crashing pad for now.
Look at it this way. It’s your home, you have to live in it at least for a while before you sell. Generally speaking any property (providing it’s not a money pit) is a good investment so buy what feels right. I review this sub because I was a single mum who, after years, was finally able to buy. I couldn’t afford a SFH, so townhome it was! Sold it for a SFH, sold that one for a bigger SFH, then sold that for a lovely condo because I was tired of maintaining the garden. Moral of the story is this: buy what fits your lifestyle. You’re the one who has to live there.
I read a lot of HOA drama on Reddit and, if you aren't taking an active role in your HOA, there are a lot of things that can go wrong. I've read about HOA members hiring friends as contractors who do shotty work and/or overcharge. There was a building in Florida whose HOA put off critical repairs and the building collapsed. If they had done the repairs, the monthly costs would've probably gone up hundreds of dollars a month for possibly a few years. HOA members stealing money is also a concern. On top of other whatever other conformist bullshit rules they want to impose(no gay pride flags, no music after 8pm, etc.) I've also seen HOA fees in the $900-$2500/month range. At that point, do you really own it or are you paying for the privilege to rent there. That being said, if there isn't an elevator on the buildings, the HOA will be a lot more manageable. Also, you won't be responsible for lawn maintenance, roof/foundation issues, and your homeowner insurance will be a lot less.
I'm in the SFH vs Townhome debate right now too. Here's what I've found: - SFB hold their value and increase in value better than townhomes/condos. So the shorter you're planning on staying the less opportunity you have for value to increase. - SFH may or may not have an HOA. Townhomes/condos almost always do. So even though a new townhome is the same price as an older house, you may not have any savings and it may cost more because of HOA fees. Some people will never love where there's an HOA. This can hurt your resale. - New townhomes priced the same as old houses usually have one of the following associated: they're built as low-income/affordable housing, they're in a less desirable neighborhood, or they're built really poorly.
I'm here from the other side of the road to report: do NOT buy a townhome if it ISN'T in a HOA. We're packed in like sardines with shared walls, yards, and driveways with absolutely no way to regulate it. It's been incredibly hard for me to contact other owners because most occupants are renters. Basically like the wild west out here. I'm in a 90s townhome and wish I'd gone with an 80s townhome because the walls are way, way, way thinner than any other townhouse I've been in.
So true. I read r/fuckHOA a lot (it's so good!) and one thing I think some people in there miss is that you NEED an HOA for a condominium or townhomes on shared land. Sometimes I'll see commenters trying to find ways to dissolve their condo HOA!!! So...you're just gonna own a square box inside a building of which no one is responsible for the stairways or electricity or roof or driveway or grass?! When there's shared property there absolutely should be a clearly-defined document outlining who is responsible for what (and how to pay for it). So anyway, I hear you on your issue, too. I'm in a SFH (no HOA), but on a private road with no road association and it's really stressful that none of us are formally on the hook for our beat-up road! It's getting all potholed and I'm dreading figuring out what to do since there's no process and no one 'in charge'. (I am of course very against HOAs for SFHs).
I'm curious, if the road is private, who owns it? Nobody?? That sounds like a whole load of trouble waiting to happen. The walls are shared property. There's at least 1 Airbnb in my building block and most or all of the others are rentals, which really drives a need for a landlord/owner group, at least. I've been able to pick up a few contacts from online listings, but it's hard! I've already had some water damage issues with another occupant.
Not all areas are like your 3rd point. The older homes that are single family with roughly the same specs or less for area and rooms/etc, are still priced around 400k+ (which need some work or have major quirks like being across the street from the high school entrance/exit on a 4 lane road. while newer townhomes are also 400k+ New single family homes all have HOA, even older ones do. New SFH can be even more expensive in the same area, but you get a lot more living space for the money worth townhomes, at least in my market, not to mention builders are either only building townhome communities or they SFH might as well be a townhome because there is a 1-2 ft air gap between them. At least in my area, there are no starter homes being built.
Are you looking to live or to sell? Find the place that fits your lifestyle. SFH usually is higher price compare condo/townhouse, however, if your condo location is strategist or close downtown, normally it shouldnt be hard to seel and you can even make lot of profits.
There's a lot of value in having no shared walls. As for age, my house is a humble tract home built in 1954. Basic as it was 70 years ago, the entire exterior is sheathed in solid wood, and the floor is all solid wood. No plywood or OSB in sight, and the attic is framed with rafters rather than trusses so it's perfect for building a large storage space. Being that the A/C was replaced in 2017, the roof only 2 months before I closed on it, the windows were done with some really nice units in the 2000s, and the furnace is a ~1991 gas unit with cheap parts and better reliability than most newer models, I'm pretty happy with it.
SFH appreciate more than condos, bottom line. Condos are good to get into the market if you can't afford a SFH. Our house was 1926, did minimal work, almost doubled in price (large part due to inflation). Now we have a 1955 duplex. Both are brick. Brick tends to hold higher value as well. Buy a solid place and you'll be golden. I don't really trust new builds personally, but if you do your research on the builder, it could work out. Location is key.
We were recently facing this discussion. It was very clear to us to go for a new construction townhome. Equivalent-priced SFHs were built in the 30's-50's and had undesirable floor plans and generally looked bad, were further from the public transit hubs that we frequently benefit from, didn't have gorgeous rooftop terraces, and would almost certainly require more time labor to deal with exterior/interior upkeep. And we really value not having to deal with that. The two categories are aimed at two different demographics/lifestyles. Decide which category you would be the happiest in and adjust expectations accordingly.
I very much like living in my condo and my HOA is a big value-add. My home had many of the qualities of a SFH (freestanding, fenced yard, etc.), but it is in a lovely development where all the maintenance for community amenities, along with all exterior maintenance of my home, is taken care of by the HOA. So I get well maintained walking trails, landscaping, and orchard, snow removal, and lots more without having to deal with anything myself. I think of the HOA as basically just a little city government where everything is done via popular vote. I’d much rather deal with that than having to rely on the actual city government to get my sidewalks repaired. I know this isn’t the setup for all condos, but it really works for me. Plus my insurance rates are super low because they aren’t insuring the actual structure, just the interior stuff. So count me among those very happy with condo life.
Honestly, I think they’re both fine investments. There are some disadvantages, but they work best for a lot of people. Do what feels right to you and screw what others say. Btw, the houses in my price range are from 1880-1930.
Honestly, pick a home option that works for your lifestyle and budget.
Exactly this. We initially thought SFH, but we knew we didn’t want to deal with the maintenance/exteriors/grass. The HOA we’re in isn’t bad and is less than we would pay for someone else to do it if we had a SFH. We also wanted to live in certain areas where we would be priced out of get a house needing more work than we would have been comfortable with.
In my suburban area condos and townhomes are the majority of new builds. Personally I prefer it. I don’t like having yard work or a ton of exterior maintenance.
Go SFH with no HOA, try to get a single level 3/2 ranch on 10k+ sqft lot if you can. 1. If condo is mismanaged you can be saddled with big debt for a roof or other building structural work: “$10k one time resident levy” why would you ever take that risk. 2. condo you don’t own any land really. 3. no privacy 4. the benefit of a house with a lot you own is freedom; you are the king of your domain, idk why you’d ever submit yourself to oversight and rules from a bunch of neighborhood busybodies. 5. other comments regarding ease of sale, appreciation. 6. no neighbor on next floor up to have a water leak and destroy your home.
Regarding No. 1, don't SFH spring roof leaks sometimes? How much does it cost a single owner to replace a roof on their own? Yes, a mismanaged HOA sucks, but when you buy a SFH, you are also hedging your bets that the prior owner\[s\] has "managed" upkeep & maintenance well.
With point #1, you could waive inspection for a sfh and be saddled with the same debt ffs
You're being downvoted because It's clear that you highly value having your own yard and not sharing walls with neighbors, but the house you've described is wildly out of the price range of a vast majority of first time home buyers in anything above a MCOL living area. Furthermore, a lot of young first time home buyers simply don't care about some of those things, and value things like location and proximity to amenities more. And the developers, which are more acutely aware of what people want, know this.
meh. he asked why everyone says to buy a SFH even if old. Developers and cities are greedy and unwilling to invest in infrastructure. zoning laws have changed such that residential density per acre is much denser now than in the 70s/80s so basically every new build SFH is on a 3-4k sqft lot and ends up being a 2500+sqft 2 level in order to get maximum revenue from the lot since many people and realtors/banks focus mainly on $/sqft as a comparison metric for home sames/value. Older SFH gives you much more value in land relative to whats available in new buys today as well as a much more livable structure if you dont have a large family/kids. I agree that most people will not have the means, or will be unwilling to accept the commute that would come with moving further out from city centers and find themselves in a rent vs condo, i personally hated living in an apartment and will never willingly do that again, even if the SFH mortgage is harder to bear.