Big beautiful new home in declining area vs smaller older home in safer, better town
Which is more important to you? My husband and I are thinking of moving in the next year or so. Our current neighborhood is going down and the crime rate is going up. Neighboring towns seem to be following the same pattern, and we think buying a home in those towns would not be a long term investment for that reason.
Further north in the next county is several towns that are "rich" area. Amazing school systems, no gangs, most desirable areas. But these towns were established many year ago, and all the homes are built in the 1940s-60s.
With the budget we will likely have we can buy a small home in one of these towns. Or a big "beautiful" home (and new) in the so-so towns.
I feel that location and school systems should be the main reason to buy a home. Hubby says that he agrees, but complains that all the wealthy areas are also all older homes. I keep telling him, if he wants a McMansion in a mediocre town with slowly declining schools and area, we can do that. I'm getting the feeling he doesn't care where we live as long as he can show off a giant home.
My kids are little, with one not even born yet. I want to find a neighborhood where we can stay for the next 20+ years with good schools and a family atmosphere. I don't need a huge house with tons of show rooms and spare bedrooms to be happy.
Hi;
I would definitely chose the safer town with the older house. You are going to be raising your kids there and you want them to be able to play outside and attend school without being afraid something might happen and if you are anxious at anytime living there your kids will pick that up and potentially make them unsettled. if you bought the older house you could always remodel/renovate into your dream home over time?.
Last edited by ToniPlusTwo; 08-21-2014 at 09:32 PM.
I would choose the safer town with the older house. I've lived in areas with higher crime rates and it isn't pleasant. We often had to make repairs because of damage to the house. Then there always the worry of things being stolen, which is common in those sorts of areas.
Also, a larger home is a lot more difficult to keep clean and you don't want that especially when you have children.
I think ToniPlusTwo also had some very good points. And I do agree that you can remodel/renovate if you aren't entirely happy with the older house.
I, too, would choose an older home in a better neighborhood. I wouldn't want to live in a nice house but be constantly worried about my kids playing outside, or know they will be going to a mediocre school unless I shell out big buck to go private.
In 20 years your kids won't remember the McMansion, or care about it at least. None of you will be thinking "I am so glad we lived in such a huge house!" They will be remembering all the memories made in the town they grew up in and they will be thankful for a good education that gets them further in life. You may have to put some sweat equity into an older home, but that's also part of the lifestyle...you can work together as a family to make it your own, and as long as you choose something within your budget (or below) you can make whatever upgrades are necessary for it to be more modern.
Plus, who wants to clean a huge house anyway? Or spend all their time mowing the huge yard? :P
I was faced the same decision, but choose the smaller house and safe neighborhood. Although I always wondered how it would be if I lived in the big house.
Ugh I just wrote this long reply and lost it...so I'm going to recap. Basically I agree that we should move into an older home in the better neighborhood and keep in mind that down the road we can renovate. Many of these homes are well kept and have renovations already.
Hubby is very unrealistic and gets annoyed at buying any home older than the 1990s! Our house now is from 1994 and we just had to replace the heat, AC and water heater. And he keeps saying that an older home would break even more. He doesn't get that this house was owned by house poor people (t was going into foreclosure when we bought it) and they did not keep up on it, As like most of the houses in this neighborhood.
In the neighborhood that we are thinking of moving to, these are well kept homes and not just bought and left to fall apart. His response was that after being here for 3 years, he "doesn't have the energy to fix up another house"...which I think is ridiculous, he's 31 years old for god sake! You think the way he talks he's a 70 year old man that just put 20 years of his life into a home. I think it really comes down to he wants to have a big beautiful new house (because many of his coworkers do) and he's all sour grapes about not getting it. Well, his coworkers either make much more than he does, area about 10 years older, don't have kids, or live in the so-so neighborhoods. That's another thing, we are only in our early 30s with young kids, and I keep telling him that another 10 years from now we will be better off financially, but we need to get established. We came from a very poor background and I am grateful to be where we are, and to even have the opportunity to move into some of these sought after neighborhoods is amazing considering where we came from. And I feel like DH is acting like a ungrateful little brat because he can have what he wants (and what his friends have).
He keeps saying he wants to move to the better neighborhoods, but just makes endless negative comments about the homes being too old and too small, not a positive word has come out of his mouth. He's such a Debbie downer. Then when I say to him, you obviously don't want to move to these neighborhoods if that means not getting your big new house, his reply is "I never said that!"... grrrrrrr
Last edited by GlamourGirl827; 08-22-2014 at 09:49 AM.
Every house new or old is going to have something that needs fixing or is going to need fixing at some point. That is the nature of the beast. The kids and the better school system, and the safer area are much more important than having a huge house.
An old house needing a lot of work is just not true. Yes, some will, but a lot have been really cared for. My parents bought an old house, other than painting the rooms for decoration areas and getting rid of the horrid avocado green carpets that were a fad in the 70s, they didn't do much work. It was nice, very nice.
My Aunt Jane use to flip houses before the crash. She loved the old ones more, because they could look 10 times more classy with far more character. She also claimed that the older ones were built to last, while the newer models were built to be put up fast and move people in fast. She claimed to have more problems and updates with one of the newer models, than an older one. She also claims that it was just always cookie cutter so it was harder to turn around for a profit.
She also claimed that the older ones were built to last, while the newer models were built to be put up fast and move people in fast. She claimed to have more problems and updates with one of the newer models, than an older one.
I came here to say something similar. I definitely don't assume that newer construction = better. And there's a world of difference between cosmetic issues (dated look) and structural ones. My neighborhood was built in the 1940s and properties are a hot commodity... for location reasons, though it helps that the homes have good bones. I'm honestly not sure that I'd want to look at something built in the last 20 years. I am definitely skeptical and a little cynical about quality issues in newer developments.
Maybe you need to take another approach in the discussion. It's very hard breaking against that "keeping up with peers" consumption mindset. Preach value and long-term financial health, maybe? If you bought a foreclosure/short sale once before, it sounds like you guys are already share some of those values? I can't judge him for not having the heart to take on a house that's a "project." I thought that sounded OK a couple years ago, til we bought a mostly-fine foreclosure... and I quickly learned that for me, sweat equity sounded a lot better in my head than the gritty reality, haha.
Maybe a compromise diamond in the rough can be found -- an older house that needs mainly cosmetic updates and nothing too serious?
Like the others, I would choose safety and security over all else, especially if you're raising children there.
I don't know much about buying a house, but when buying a used car, you can get a pre-purchase inspection of it, where a guy checks it out and tells you how much it would cost approximately to fix it up and what kind of maintenance it would need in the near future. I'm pretty sure that can be done on a house too (a quick Google search says there are people and companies that do thorough home inspections before you purchase). Could that be an option that might make your husband feel more comfortable about getting an older house?
Big beautiful new home in declining area vs smaller older home in safer, better town
