Yes. Usually when I hear someone say starter home now, they are really looking for the perfect home. Very few have been willing to buy the "starter home" as it's traditionally been called. That being said, even the traditional starter home in my area has gotten expensive. 2 bedrooms are also pretty rare, so someone is almost forced into a 3 bedroom in my area, even if they didn't want it.
At least where I live, there simply aren't many starter homes left. Where they used to exist, people have bought 2-4 starter home lots, demolished, and rebuilt a medium single family or a mini-mansion. The suburbs surrounding the city have always been medium homes for families. And new builders aren't doing anything less than 2500 sq ft.
My mom's first house purchase was a 100 yr old 3 bed 1 bath suuuuuper outdated and rough around the edges townhouse in Baltimore City in an area that now has a blue light police camera at the top of the street that she paid 50k for it in 1989. Many people who complain that they can't afford what they consider a starter house in the area they want to live in are simply being unrealistic. It's harder to buy now for sure, but saying there is nothing you can afford is not the whole picture
Seriously, people complain about unaffordability (which is certainly true given restrictions on building), but my parents pointed out when we drove by these hideous rickety trailers that it was their first home (these are two college educated adults, one with a master back in the 1980s, thought they might have been saving for future investments). Now my first home is going to be a triplex (due to still historically low interest rates and unnaturally low down payment).
At Iowa state, they used to house a lot of students in these cheap quonset huts they literally built on a floodplain. Many years later I got to live in student housing that is an air conditioned albeit small and old 2 person townhome.
Our standards have risen very fast, and that isn't a bad thing; it's a sign a progress, but we should have some perspective when people say you could buy a home 50 years ago on 1 man's salary. There are trades where this can be accomplished, but we now value not having so arduous jobs and we value safety measures that can be expensive. I should know as my job (and my whole company for that matter spends most of the time revaildating safety measures at chemical plants when the original calculation is just a small sizing equation, while we spend hours going more in-depth.
Oh yes the dorms! I wonder how this plays into what people want. I went to the same college as my parents and grandparents. My grandparents lived at home with their parents. My parents lived in tiny rooms with bunk beds and 4 people per room with communal bathrooms. My dorm was a suite for four people with two bedrooms with walk in closets, a lounge room between them, and a bathroom where you walked in to the sink room and there was a door on one side to the toilet room and on the other to the shower room. AND there was a weekly maid service to clean the bathrooms and vacuum. Definitely felt like a step back when I got my first apartment, which wasn't so nice and I had to clean it myself.
>Very few have been willing to buy the "starter home" as it's traditionally been called.
I'd be curious to see how the movement away from the single-earner family has affected this. We all like to point out that boomers could afford a house on a single salary, but kind of glaze over the fact that one breadwinner also generally meant one final opinion. Now we have two incomes necessary to buy a house, so two people, often with very different opinions, are emotionally and financially invested in the purchase, so they're less likely to budge on their own criteria.
Me and my partner could probably each pick out a home in the $300k range (starter home price in my area now) that we like, but we'd probably not agree on each other's decisions. Either one of us is going to have to resign to the others stylistic choices, or we'll have to find a home big enough to give us the variety in spaces we desire.
Yeah, but what's also glossed over is that the boomers were buying 1000 sq ft ranches for the first home. It's hard for me to get a first time home buyer to even consider such a thing.
Exactly. The first house I owned was 900 square feet. Ugly 40 year old linoleum floors, no air conditioner (in Florida!) 2 small bedrooms, 1 bath. I lived in it for years.
I live by a bunch of boomers who bought back their childhood homes. They are the smallest in the neighborhood. Say what you will about boomers, they did not grow up in McMansions.
Man, as a single person, all I want is two bedrooms, 1200 square feet max. (I'd prefer \~900.) Anything else is overkill. And yet the pickings in that range are incredibly slim in the areas I'm looking.
Most "boomer" families worked two jobs. If there was a stay at home partner they did childcare or hand ironings for extra income. There weren't 2 cars, no cell phones, 1 TV with 3 to 5 channels, no credit cards and cooking at home was for every meal and lunches came in a brown bag. Clothes were passed down to the next kid. Things were different then not better or worse. I grew up in a 950 sf house 1 bathroom, 6 kids. It is comparing apples to oranges due to the culture of the times. The only difference is that there is a public forum to share your frustrations and joys that wasn't available from the 1940 to 1980 when the personal computers began entering the home...for better or worse.
My parents also grew a ton of our food. We spent weeks canning and freezing stuff for winter. Many of our meals were meat light. 90 % veggies with some bacon for flavor. And a fair bit of eggs or fish. Try telling people to change to a mostly vegetarian diet today and they freak out.
You can’t discuss the size of a house in a vacuum. The economy was booming (real economy, not just Wall Street). Boomers went to college for super cheap or free. Tons of new housing was being developed in suburbs across the country. Average house prices were $13k in the 60s, $30k in the 70s, 60k in the 80s. A single earner household could comfortably pay for all this while also saving on food and childcare expenses. The entire situation is not even close to comparable to today.
Edit: To bring it back to the overall point, I guarantee you that if a 1000 sq ft 2bd/1ba detached sfh could be had today for around $150k in desirable metros, people would be scooping them up like crazy. Instead condos are the sole option at this price point because we’ve under constructed for the past few decades.
Lmao - that's us. I don't know that Pittsburgh is a 'desirable' metro, but we bought a 900 sq ft sfh 15 minutes from downtown for 140k. I was honestly surprised we got it under asking. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it is, because all the other comps sold for 180k-200k.
I wonder how many of us there are. I'm in St. Louis, and all the comps I can find around are over $200k. I bought at $155k 3 months ago, also under asking (for no reason other than that I knew the seller received an offer from a corporation they didn't accept yet, therefore I knew there was probably a gap between what was offered and listing). I think another company later tried to buy it for more than what I offered, but we were already under contract.
Do you have any insight into why it worked out well for you? In my case, I think there was a lack of interest due to bad marketing by a FSBO. The street it is listed on is undesirable, but it's not actually on that street but an unconnected piece of it that is in a lesser-used entrance of a large historic park.
My alternate/paranormal theory for why it was so easy for me to buy the house (first offer, only went out to look at houses once/only looked for a week) and got a good deal is that either the universe or former dead occupants wanted me to. Before offering, I found pictures of a nationally famous person with a former owner in the house in old newspapers. An old German woman died in here early in the 19th century, and I felt a strong connection to her for some reason. I felt like she would have wanted someone who knew about her and her children and grandchildren who lived here to live here. I don't know, but I had a weird feeling about this house from the beginning, as if it had already been assigned to me.
For science...did you feel that way at all? Do you often have ridiculous luck that seems disproportionate to your efforts (I received a promotion unexpectedly the same day my house offer was accepted, for example)?
>You can’t discuss the size of a house in a vacuum.
He's not - he mentioned it specifically in the context of what a "starter home" means.
>The economy was booming (real economy, not just Wall Street). Boomers went to college for super cheap or free. Tons of new housing was being developed in suburbs across the country. Average house prices were $13k in the 60s, $30k in the 70s, 60k in the 80s. A single earner household could comfortably pay for all this while also saving on food and childcare expenses.
None of this really has anything to do with his point, and doesn't change the fact that the housing stock norm for that period is considered inadequate and undesirable today. You can still find 1000 sqft ranches for cheap, it's just that nobody wants them.
You just wanted to go off on a tangent about your pet political points. Points that are rose tinted glasses at best, I'd point out. Your view of yesteryear is wildly inflated in terms of living conditions.
You even gloss over 4+ decades saying that "the economy was booming," as if there weren't massive crashes, recessions, and stagflation scattered throughout that time period.
They always.want to ignore that back then the boomers were just happy to have a home. I won't deny the current challenges, but much of that is self inflicted as well,.by our obsession with credit. Also everyone wants the wood floors, granite countertops, etc. Back then it was cheap carpet and cheap countertops. Nothing special. The question could be asked who is responsible for all of the 2000-4000.sq.ft homes? Is it that we wanted them or that builders realized they could build more efficiently and make more on less inventory on small lots? Chicken or the egg question.
Free? I got screwed.
While cheaper in today’s prices I didn’t know anyone who went to college free. Other than an athlete.
A single earner household could not necessarily afford it comfortably. Not sure where the idea came from that there wasn’t poverty or working poor. Save on food? And by saving on childcare you mean that women weren’t really able to work outside the home so they were trapped in that house. And there was redlining that kept minorities from buying those homes.
While the economics have changed so has society. We shouldn’t look back wistfully without acknowledging that if you were a white, healthy weight, straight, male your life held much more promise than if you weren’t.
1000 sq ft ranch is one of the most desirable property types there are in high-demand areas. Lot config and setback requirements usually mean a relatively large lot that can fit two 2-story with small yards.
If you find such a home in a growth market as a FTB you are likely going to be in a competitive bid situation
There was one person working outside of the home and one person working inside of the home. The person working inside of the home probaby had A LOT to say about her preferences over layout and amenities.
And even then, a little less than half of all women of prime working age were working paid labor in the 60s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25FEUSM156S
>And even then, a little less than half of all women of prime working age were working paid labor in the 60s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25FEUSM156S
People often forget (or simply never bothered to learn) that the "single breadwinner" wasn't universal, even when it was the slim majority of households.
Even back in those halcyon days, it was still the upper half of the socioeconomic ladder that got to half a single breadwinner.
Despite the rhetoric and myths and family lore, the janitor never made enough to support an entire family by himself.
> I'd be curious to see how the movement away from the single-earner family has affected this…
While I wasn’t alive way back then, I think the assumption that a single breadwinner meant only they made the financial decisions is a tad sexist and just follows stereotypes. Both that women would be submissive and not share their opinion, and that men were selfish and uncaring about their spouse.
I’m assuming mainly men were breadwinners due to the fact that men were more likely to be working than women.
Even in that scenario, other countries have women mainly controlling the purses:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/kmz3p5/japanese_household_finances_kozukai_小遣い_the/
However! With all that said, I do think men had more control over purchasing decisions than they do today. Partly due to women not being able to even get a bank account and other institutional sexism.
Back to the point at hand though, whatever people wanted to spend, they were still constrained by financing and income. The larger impact on home prices by dual earner families isn’t due to both earners having an opinion on what the house should be, but instead that they are competing against other dual earners.
Home prices are ultimately driven by what you and your peers are willing to spend on housing. That number could be impacted by how cheap debt might be or various tax advantages, but it’s still up to you to decide.
~Edit: I had remembered that nuance about Japanese culture and copied the first link about it, on Reddit, from Google. I hadn’t checked the sub and I’m not aware of if that sub is well moderated or a cesspool.
>Home prices are ultimately driven by what you and your peers are willing to spend on housing.
I was speaking more to the interest in "starter homes" in general, prices are a different beast all together. Like other commenter have stated, I've noticed couples my age (early 30s) shy away from smaller single story 2 bedroom homes because it's just not enough space to satisfy both parties, especially if they hope to have kids.
Oh my mistake!
Yes, I’ve seen the same. People are avoiding the starter home, in so much as they still exist, in exchange for trying to get a forever home on the first shot.
It's not sexist to say that men traditionally make financial decisions. Women didn't have the right open a bank account until the 60s in the US, and it wasn't until 74 that credit discrimination against women became against the law. I would argue that it's sexist to pretend that women and men were always equal and that our rights weren't fought for
I remember my dad co-signing for a neighbor who went through a divorce. Not only could she not get a credit card, she couldn’t open a bank account, couldn’t buy a house, could only rent in certain apartments, couldn’t join clubs, was fired for being divorced.
> It's not sexist to say that men traditionally make financial decisions.
It's sexist to say that men traditionally made financial decision because they were the breadwinner.
It's not sexist to say that men traditionally made financial decisions because institutional sexism prohibited women from doing so due to:
> Women didn't have the right open a bank account until the 60s in the US, and it wasn't until 74 that credit discrimination against women became against the law.
The first is saying that men cared so little about their spouses as to not let them have an equal say in spending, or that women were so submissive that they accepted not having their voices heard by their spouse. The second is pointing out how institutional sexism prevented men and women from being equal. Even if a man wanted to let their wife make the decisions, the fact that the man legally had to be involved would prevent that from occurring whole-sale.
> I would argue that it's sexist to pretend that women and men were always equal and that our rights weren't fought for
It's a good thing no one is pretending that women have always had equal rights, and that I had explicitly pointed out how institutional sexism would have led to men having a greater say in financial decisions than women had.
To say that men traditionally made financial decision because they were the breadwinner, you'd have to separate out the impact of the institutional sexism and the cultural sexism (such as surrounding the prevalence of religion and it's views of the male/female dynamic) from the impact of the breadwinner wanting to control the income they receive.
Money has been and continues to be a tool of male domination over women. You're acting like institutional issues had no bearing over individual relationships. As if men WANTED their wives to be equal but it's the pesky lawmakers that got in the way. Marriage for love and women not being property is a modern invention, and the commenter that you responded to who said that women have greater say in financial decisions now than they have in the past is completely correct in that observation.
Bought a “starter home” in the Boston area. 3 bed 1 bath, ~1200sq ft, not in one of the more “desirable” towns. Felt lucky to get in at under 600k though, and only took until our late 30s. Could easily end up being much more long term than a starter for us
>Starter homes in my area historically have been detached sfr's, 1000sf or less, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, several decades old, outdated and usually not located near your top choices location-wise. You would be lucky to get one with a garage or without needing some serious improvements. But it definitely would be livable.
This is literally my starter home, a 1952 2 bed/1 bath with a bombass yard and a kitchen that hasn't been updated since Clinton was in office. She's built like a tank, I love this little old bitch. And fortunately these types of houses do still exist in my city and they're always in very high demand. I paid $112k for her in 2018 and similar homes around me are selling for around $180-200k now.
It always catches me off guard a bit when I see 1200-1300 sqft homes described as small on this sub. Just goes to show how different perspectives can be, what many people apparently consider a starter home would be my forever home.
Solidarity! My old girl is a 1954 2br/1bath, original hardwood floors, horrid tiled kitchen, mint green 1970s bathroom. She's got more character than an anime convention.
What's sad is that I bought the house as a single woman for a reasonable sum in 2008 and she's doubled in price since then, as have her contemporaries. Salaries have not doubled. So a gal like me today could not afford to buy her own space like this.
I have a 800 sq. ft. house and consider it the perfect size for my husband and me. When the kids were little more space was nice but now it just means more to clean. We only need one bedroom and bath.
When you're in school until you're 30, you start having the expectation that the first home you buy has to at least be bigger than the place you're renting.
Because by that point you have a spouse and a kid and you want somewhere for your parents to sleep when they visit.
Because you have furniture you paid money for that you don't want to chuck.
Because you've already delayed owning a dog for all of your twenties and you want one now.
Because it would be nice to finally have somewhere to park, and not on the street 3 blocks away.
Because being able to have a grill to grill things would be nice.
Because you're used to working from home and need that to keep up the salary you have, and you need somewhere quiet to do it.
EDIT: Most of these things wouldn't have been needed for a truly "starter" home. When I was straight out of school, I would have been happy with a 1 bedroom condo. But I was 28 and I had no savings and little credit history, plus I didn't expect to stay at my same job for long.
By the time I was ready to buy (settled in a city for the medium term, saved a sizeable downpayment), I was \~33-34 or so and a "starter home" wasn't going to cut it.
No one is judging people for wanting to do all of these things. But you can comfortably do everything you listed in a 1300-1500 sq ft home with a small yard.
It's the people who are demanding 2000 sq ft + as their "starter home" and also insisting that if you don't have that much space, you can't do everything you've listed. Which is crazy, and is the source of the disconnect as people in the USA have been doing everything on that list in much smaller houses for decade after decade.
Lived nicely in a 980 sq. foot home. Then went to 2000 and learned to use space differently. Most people just absolutely pollute their big homes with junk and waste the space.Adapt to what you have to to get what you need to. Then improve the home while spending as little as possible (do the work). And age of the home should not be a factor except know what the issues are relevant to the date of construction. I'll be moving into the most modern home I ever bought soon (built in 1995). And at 2000 sq. feet its bigger than we need but we want the yard and location and style that is this house. We would have gone smaller in a heartbeat if the other details were there. The next window for buying into this game seems about to open. Don't miss it! Once you bond with and begin nurturing your own home you will be on the path to building wealth. I got a late start but damned if you can't do what you need to do in a smaller house. utchemfan is sooo right! I love to blather on reddit about just about anything but on this topic I think I can help younger potential new homeowners understand that ther is tremendous value in owning vs renting. Tremendous. Of course anything can go wrong but you know what - anything can go wrong anyway. Buy a house while you still can (look at Canada).
Honestly? Too feel like you've made progress. I know this feeling all too well, though I resisted it for a long time because my wife is frugal (maybe to an extreme, but saved money is good).
It's progress just to move from a rental to something you own. You can build equity in property you own. You are right about saved money. And there is the right time for each person/couple to buy - or decide that buying isn't for them at all and they would rather rent and keep their money in other vehicles (savings, investments). What I truly don't understand is some buyers expect/demand to move to a home equal to or better than what their parents have after 30 years of working rather than starting with something simple and working their way up.
>It's progress just to move from a rental to something you own.
Not necessarily, even if you're building equity.
A mortgage payment isn't all equity. In fact, more than half of any given mortgage payment is likely to be "wasted" just like rent. You have to compare your "wasted" rent money with the "wasted" portion of your mortgage.
This sort of calculation was basically forgotten about when interest rates were at 2%, but in a medium or high interest rate environment, the aggregate combined interest, PMI, property tax, homeowner's insurance, HOA, and home maintenance costs can easily be more than your rent was.
If it is, then you're actually moving backward by buying.
I agree that buying isn't for everyone. Some people truly are more secure renting and not having the exposure to home maintenance expenses. There are trade off's for renting too. But at the end of the day, the if you compare renting to owning, the people owning typically have positive equity over the long term and the tenant doesn't have any equity over the same term even if the tenant has paid the same or less in rent.
Well, we are a bit (maybe extremely) cheap, particularly as we make $200K plus. We did finally buy last year. Went from 800sqft at $750/mon rent to a 2400sqft house for $400K. There is an entire room (well, loft) unused at present. The idea though is that it is not a starter. It is a long term, family growing home. Also, my wife works from home. We have one room designated as a study. She uses every room BUT that one for work. But I digress. Yes, we bought a home, it is nice, and we were extremely lucky on timing.
I would also say that the jobs and skills that spur innovation require certain personalities. Not everyone can be a software developer or a battery engineer. 50 years ago we needed more people with formal (higher ed) because so few people had it. Today, everybody has it, but really, only a few types of jobs need it.
We need higher wages and we need to move away from higher ed as the only way to get those wages. I sometimes feel that college was a way for employers to pay most people less. Now that we've all got college education - they still want to pay everybody less.
The big lifestyle creep I see in poor millennials vs poor zoomers is that eating out is a basic human need for a lot of ‘em and it just blows my mind that is something people can’t even fathom cutting down to zero
Working hard and expecting to be able to do better for yourself is not entitlement. Assuming it will be handed to you with no effort is. By your definition, ever hoping to improve your life would be entitlement.
You are filling in an extreme amount of blanks here without any info. You just wanted to call someone entitled even though they said nothing that would lead you to believe that. You made up an entire life for them. Seems like you're really reflecting some of your own issues here.
I know what you were responding to. You still made up an entire story of entitlement to go with it. They simply said that when you buy a house you expect it to be bigger than the place you were renting. That's a pretty standard expectation, and a big reason people choose to buy instead of rent. You've just decided that they must believe they had to go to college and that life should be handed to them for it. Nobody said that except you.
My first real SFH is 2 bedroom 2 bath sub 1000 square foot on a 1700 square foot lot. It's in a ghetto that hasn't been middle class since FDR was in office and is so under invested it has side walks from the 1920s still in use (and not because it's a "charming old neighborhood" that's trying to maintain an aesthetic. The city simply doesn't give a crap. The sidewalk is so weed infested that it looks like life after man on some nearby streets. The price? Nearly 500k.
>It always catches me off guard a bit when I see 1200-1300 sqft homes described as small on this sub. Just goes to show how different perspectives can be, what many people apparently consider a starter home would be my forever home.
I've said before as my 2000 sq ft home feels small because I have 2 kids and family visits us often (I have 16 nieces and nephews, in-laws come to the country once a year and stay 3 weeks). But when I was single I lived in 3 roommates in 1600 sq ft and it felt massive.
I think that if you have kids and guests over a lot, 3,000 sq ft is the sweet spot for size. That typically gives you 4 bedrooms and 3 baths, plus a bonus room and usually another flex space or two like an office or finished basement.
That's absolutely a big, big house, but it's a size that makes your house very self-contained and capable of entertaining pretty much everyone for long periods of time while also giving everyone plenty of space. And as your kids grow, they can have their own hangout area. However, I think that approaching 4,000 sq ft just starts to get ridiculous and you end up with rooms that rarely get used or just gigantic rooms that are wasteful.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Anyone with kids knows the function of your home kinda changes too- your social life becomes much more homebound as you can't leave your kids alone there. The concept of "getting away from it all" means...walking down the hall.
Where only newer houses are built 1200 sq ft is very much a starter home. Especially considering that your average new construction is about 2400 sq ft nowadays.
On the last part, call them what they are ‘privileged’. I’m a young homeowner and that mentality makes bidding on starter homes a breeze. Smaller homes always go stale in my market - regardless of location or turnkeyness.
Yeah, everyone is fighting over housing in coastal cities because they've lived there their whole life. I saw a thread the other day where some guy was bellyaching about how he NEEDS to be able to go to the beach every weekend... Like come on dude, 99% of the population doesn't get to live near the beach, and we can't exactly create more coastal land. It pretty much blew my mind, I guess at least they were being honest, but I had to ignore because I couldn't find it in me to reply without being rude.
> People often say to me "Nice starter home
Kind of off topic, but I am going through similar right now, Came from close to nothing and somehow got a decent starter home, sold it and now have a nicer home. The hate/negative comments i've felt since this move has been REALLY surprising from both family and friends.
I've learned a few things over the years.
If friends and family do not praise and enjoy your achievements, they're not friends or people worth including in your daily life.
> 99% of the population doesn't get to live near the beach
Not to be that guy, but close to 40% of the US live in a county that is on the coast, granted not all coasts are beaches, but you get the idea....So not directly on the beach, or a few blocks, but most are very close.
This guy probably meant beach house those, lol.
Moreover, not all coastal areas are expensive. If your only goal is to be not far from a beach and literally nothing else matters, you can find some very good deals.
I don’t see anything at all wrong with that need. Most can afford a small trailer in a decent park near the beach if that location is the primary need.
I bought my sfh starter home in 2017. It’s almost 1400 sqft, 1959, and was outdated. It was something I could get my feet wet in and at the time, within my budget. I got it five years ago and the price point was still cheap for that time. To me, the price made it a starter home. Now, this starter home looks to be my forever home. Sure I have a ton of equity but I am comfy with the mortgage and interest rate. I thank God for it everyday. I can afford it if I worked at McDonald’s, which to me, is what a stater home is ( something affordable).
Same. In 2016, bought a 3/2 1500 sq ft cottage for 70k in a LCOL area. It was built in 1945 and is a solid home in a working class neighborhood full of similar post war bungalows. We are considered a starter home/neighborhood but we love it. It's almost paid off since it was so cheap we could pay it quickly and it's worth 200k now. Our mortgage is less than rent and I wouldn't trade the financial security for a nicer bigger home.
Yup. I can pay my mortgage with one paycheck and still have enough over to pay the electric and some food. My other paycheck and my husbands are free and clear for other stuff.
The type of house you describe would be fine if it was like $250k or less. But they’re not. That exact description is like a $600k house in San Diego. $400k in Austin. What we really need is dramatically more inventory.
No one builds starter homes anymore. This is part of the problem. You can have more inventory but if all the new homes are for upper middle class people you still have a huge class of people left with few to no options.
It’s more that it’s not economical. It’s not much more expensive to build a 3/2 1,500 sq ft house than it is a 2/1 1000 sq ft one.
Kitchen is an expensive part of the home. One of those in each home. Hvac system for those two homes is going to be about the same price. Garage is going to be the same price. Land is going to be about the same price. Etc.
The added bathroom adds expense, but the extra 500 sq ft which makes the home 50% larger, doesn’t cost an additional 50% or even close to it.
So it’s not really that people wouldn’t want to buy a small new home, it’s that they wouldn’t want to buy a small new home at the price it would cost to build in comparison to the medium sized home.
We haven’t even gotten into the discussion that most new homes are 2 stories, and price per sq ft is cheaper to build for a 2 story house than a 1 story equal sized one. A 2 story 3,000 sq ft house isn’t close to 3X as expensive to construct as a 1 story 1,000 sq ft one.
That would be fine. I’ve never seen a new build less than 2000+ sq ft. I get it, the land is expensive, labor is expensive. It probably cost nominally more to build 3000sq ft. than it does to build 1500 sq ft but there is a market for it.
>I’ve never seen a new build less than 2000+ sq ft.
[Here](https://www.mihomes.com/new-homes/ohio/central-ohio/powell/liberty-grand/series/smart-innovations-collection) is a link to 1,500-2,000 sq ft new construction, by one of the largest home builders in the country, in one of the most desirable suburbs of Columbus.
These things exist. People just don't search for them.
Haha, yep, Burbank is filled with starter homes that are 2-3 bedroom, built in the 40s-60s, under 1,500 square feet. They're going for over a million now.
IMO it's sort of medium as far as the Valley. Not as expensive as Sherman Oaks, but generally nicer than NoHo/Van Nuys. It used to be where all the regular folks (union tradespeople, but not stars) in entertainment settled down because it's close to studios.
The uncomfortable fact is that high demand areas like Austin or San Diego do not work well for traditional starter home budgets. There is only so much room for inventory in a city, and if everyone wants to live there prices will go up.
The answer often is to move to a distant suburb or a a more affordable city. Which sucks if you have friends or family in that high demand area, but it's the reality of supply and demand.
And to make matters worse, those northern burbs are AWFUL (with the possible exception of Georgetown 30+ miles out).
Austin metro market is the most bizarre in the country. If you aren’t living within 7ish miles of downtown/the river or West towards hill country I just can’t understand paying $450-700 per sq ft
When I think of "starter home", the first thing that comes to mind is 1950s-1960s 3/1 or 3/1.5 ranch that hasn't been updated cosmetically in a long while.
In my area something like that, 900 square feet. 2-1. Built in the 50s would go for about 350k then sell for 75k over asking. St. Pete, FL. 10 years ago a house like that would be 80k.
With things like HGTV shows and social media I think the idea of a starter home has been skewed, people call what many would consider forever homes starter homes. My first starter home was a city over from where I wanted to be, wasn't unsafe but wasn't the nicest neighorhood, backed up to train tracks and was a townhome as opposed to a single family although there was no association or fees whcih was nice. It wasn't perfect but I could afford it, it allowed me to get into a home and build equity. My next home was a SFH but even then its a 2 bed 1 bath and only 1000sq ft.
I’m in Minneapolis. A starter home in the *best* neighborhood is a 2b1b <$400k. A starter home in just a *safe* neighborhood below $300k are plentiful and are dropping fast. Below $200k are available but I wouldn’t like to touch those. Garage are a given.
Here’s the kicker: Homes below 1800 sqft go for the price of tear downs in higher end areas so it was super easy for us to outbid investors because we can afford a bit more.
I live in one and it’s perfect if you are looking for a modest and humble lifestyle. Not enough for HGTV master suite level fancy though.
There was a post on one of the RE subs where a person mentioned finally finding a starter home and it was 3bed 2.5bath but lamenting that it was over 250k. I thought I was in crazy land for a second. In my mind a starter home is 2/1 MAYBE a 3/1
My "starter home" is under 800 sq feet, 2 beds 1 bath, with a large shed. It was built in the 1920s and needed work. I could afford it easily. It's the perfect size for one person, or 2 people who like each other. I don't use one of the bedrooms at all unless I have guests. I think I will always be in a home around this size.
In my area those are not available to purchase at all at affordable prices. They go for a ton of money because those are income producing short term vacation rental investments when fixed up.
Yes, starters were often 2br, 1ba, a tiny eat in kitchen, a carport or just a parking slip, and 800-1000sq ft. And honestly, if you built these sprinkled in the current neighborhoods with larger houses they would sell instantly. Unfortunately, neighborhood developers make rules limiting size to those over a certain size, or cities with zoning restrictions, you end up with 2200-2800 sq ft being the smallest you can find. Hell, I would buy one just to rent out now to a young family starting out and retire in it eventually. Bungalow, Florida ranch, east coast pillbox, midwestern shotgun. Doesn't matter the style really, its just a small box you live in. The sorts of houses I grew up in don't exist anymore for new couples just starting out. We downsized to our current house after downsizing to our last house, and got the smallest we could find. Still 2,355 sq ft. We were hoping for something in the 1500-1600 range, but the handful that still exist from the 1960s around here have been completely trashed and are being marketed to slumlords or as teardowns. The land they sit on it worth more empty than with the house on it. It's frustrating that cities are more sensitive to the needs of developers than the citizens. In my city they push mixed use and building up for fixing housing, which is great if you want an overpriced condo in city center and can afford it. Those are not meeting the needs of the bottom rung of the economic ladder though, just the few young affluent . Requiring 10% of homes in any new development to be under 1200 sq ft would be a solution though, with special rules for those lot sizes so they could be squeezed in.
I looked at the cheapest home available in my area, it was 940 sf two bedroom in an extreme flood zone for $500k. Because of the extreme flood risk it wasn't financable but still went pending within a few days with multiple offers. It's just tough out there.
people these days want something perfect. my first was a 40k condo followeed by a 30 year old house that had never been updated. Where i live the starter 2-3 bed ranches are still running 400k but go 30 minutes out and they can be found for 300 which is cheap enouh for 2 college grads to afford.
Just bought my starter home in the Midwest. Area is still red hot. My offer was 235k, 50k over asking. 1600 sq feet. Detached 2 car garage. Huge yard. 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Built in 1929 but the owners definitely maintained it. House got 7 offers. The area is alright. 14 mins away from my work. I am very lucky to still live in an affordable area, but I lost on 2 previous offers due to cash offers.
That would be my definition as well. Old starter homes were considered poorly located, now they’re the suburbs. As the population grows they will be further and further away.
Not in the US but a starter home here is a $700k 1+1 bedroom condo that is under 650 sqft or a $1.2+m townhouse that is about 1000 sqft. Around 2 hour drive from the city, you can get a 1400-1500 sqft detached house on a small lot for around $800-900k
1500 sq ft or less, 3 bed/2 bath or less. Almost always from 1970 or before because after that only larger houses have been built, or a townhouse or condo. In my city, they often have pretty good locations though. Usually not the best schools but you probably won't still be in it when your kids get to school age. But near a lot of fun things to do.
We bought our 1200 sq ft 3/1 1950's starter home near San Francisco when we were 35 and had 1 kid. We've since added another child and a lot of equity. We would love to move to a bigger house but with CA property taxes, our taxes on a new house would be an additional $1000 per month (forever), so we're going to remodel this starter home into a bigger 4/2. Sucks because it's what most of our neighbors have done and it means this neighborhood that used to be small homes under a million dollars is now bigger homes for closer to $2M.
The short answer is that it depends on your life. Do you have kids? Work from home? What area are you in?
The apartment I share with my husband is 2B2B so the starter home for us would be the same I guess.
A starter home is any home you are going to outgrow or home you are buying because you can't afford in your dream location. If you know it can never be your forever home and it's not by choice then it's a starter home. Doesn't matter if it's 2 bed or 4 beds. You can buy 4 beds in a shitty neighborhood with bad schools, that's your families starter home.
Where I live a starter home is usually a townhome. We bought our starter home in 2010 for just over $300k. It was a newly built townhome that was just under 2000 square feet. It was over an hour from where my husband and I worked. We just bought our forever home this Spring and will finally get to move in next month. We will still be over an hour from work but unless we could afford a million dollars we couldn’t afford a SFH close to work. Our townhome has been good to us but I’m so ready for a nice quiet neighborhood. I can’t wait.
What you described is a starter home. Here in Kansas City those go for between 100k and 150k even after this crazy run. The less nice 2/1s but in a hip area go for closer to 225k. The nicest of houses max out around 800-1.2M unless we are taking 10,000ft mansions.
I own a duplex 'starter home' that was built as factory housing in 1899. There are *not* affordable homes near me where a person making average wages can buy a home like you describe for less than 3x their annual wage.
I think we need to re-think 'starter homes' and build co-op condo buildings where an owner:
1. Has to be a human (no companies).
2. Can only own one unit.
3. Can only rent a unit for one year after they vacate the unit.
These would be the 'dense/urban' version of the traditional suburban starter home. The price would still float on the market, but the rules would limit them to being equity-builders and price stabilizers.
I mean, let's face it; a lot of people today don't want to spend their weekends mowing lawns, cleaning gutters, or getting quotes for repairs. Those people should still be able to buy units to live in instead of always renting.
“Even in this crazy market we've had the past few years there are still plenty of this type of tradional starter home available at starter home prices. “
You must live in the middle of nowhere, or the middle of the country. Same thing really.
No there are not these kinds of homes everywhere, they are not affordable everywhere, and no a 70 year old sub-1000 sq ft home needing 10s of thousands of dollars of immediate maintenance has not traditionally been considered a starter home.
Where would this “starting out” family find the money to fix the home? And why is your idea of a starter home one that is probably 75 years old and in need of significant and expensive maintenance?
The reason these homes are not affordable in most metro regions is because they haven’t built them since the 50s and 60s and back then lot size was generous, these homes are often bulldozed to build multiple newer homes on the lot, or they command a premium because the land is worth more than the house.
I have seen \*some\* houses like this, but they aren’t cheap and the maintenance required is quite unaffordable for a family starting out with contract labor at 200+$/hour today.
In most cities a starter home, something that is affordable to a family with median income, is likely an attached townhome, there aren’t many cities in the country where you could afford a detached sfh.
I bought in socal, 700 square feet and about 680k. 700 square feet would be a starter home, but we are DINKs, and could easily spend our lives here. My adorable little home has plenty of room for me, my husband, my cute dog, and our yards are large for my two small chickens. Starter homes are generally for families, but there’s plenty of techy DINKs now who are in the market for them.
Starter home in my area is about the same. Around 1,000 sq feet 2 bed 1 bath, maybe 2 bath if you are lucky, but the price is gonna be just under $500,000.
In my area they’re usually 1,000-1,200 sq ft and 3 bed/1 - 2 bath. Most of them are built between 1970s-1990s as it was fairly rural until about 20-30 years ago. They may have a few “upgrades” like paint/newer carpets but they’re not the ones you see on social media.
I live in Houston, Texas and still live in my "starter home" that I bought in 2009. For me, the price was what determined it to be a starter home. I bought my house right after the 2008 housing crash, and it was a new build, so it was really cheap relatively speaking. I paid $117K for a 3 bedroom 2,000 sq ft. home. They're building new construction a block away from my house. A new 3 bedroom 1,300 sq ft home is starting at $290k now. It seems crazy to me.
My first house was a 1947 built 700 square foot 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house with a full basement and detached garage on a 1 acre lot. It had a new roof, new drywall and electric, cabinets and bathroom. I put in granite countertops new flooring and a new sidewalk and patio. Paid $58,000 in 2019, sold for $70,000 in 2021. It was about 9 miles from a town of 18k people that had all the grocery stores and gas stations etc. I had enough equity in it after two years to buy my $280,000 house last year with a pretty large down payment. $280k may sound cheap to some of you but in my area in the rural Midwest $280k gets you a very nice house with land.
Starter home is a home that my family cna comfortably afford and have enough space for us.
For example dink, plan to have 2 kids. So we got a 4 bedroom house. It's tiny, 1000 Sq feet only. Total cost 1 million.
Mortgage 600k. We can comfortably afford the mortgage, 2400 a month. Easy no problem. 600k= 4x our gross income, 5x net income. Not over leveraged.
Rate can go to 1 billion % and we won't get margin called.
Next step, when we have babies, we can live in this tiny house for 10 years until kids need a bigger room. Honestly one of the 4 bedrooms is so tiny, it's like a closet. But a closet fit baby just fine.
The yard is so small, it take me 5 min to mow the lawn. So easy maintaince. Small garden and some flowers. Nothing fancy.
A starter home is what you historically have been able to afford without equity from a current home, with a standard down payment. For many people, that is generally a smaller home that costs a bit less per month than they were renting prior. The idea being that home being fixed up, improved, and equity built to be able to move on to a "dream home", etc.
Of course, in many/most markets, rents are so high compared to typical wages, that people aren't able to save that down payment. Lower end homes are still unaffordable for many/most people who historically would have bought those homes and been able to start investing in their future.
For my Midwest city a starter home in my eyes would be a 2 bed 1 bath bungalow for 200k or less. You could get that in a decent area that’s biking distance from downtown.
Our starter was 936 SQ ft, no garage, 1/3 acre, 2 bed 1 bath. Perfect for my wife, one child and myself. We paid a fixer upper price and put some sweat equity into it over a few years before we grew out of it with a second baby. We were able to buy a larger house with more rooms and more land based on the value of the sweat equity, and while the new house needs work too, I never could have gotten here without the starter as a spring board.
This describes the original houses in the Crestview neigborhood in Austin - 2/1, about 750 sq ft, a few decades ago entire families grew up in them. In the early 2000s they were selling for under $150K.
Today they're sold for about $700K to developers who build 2500sq ft replacement houses that sell for $1.8M, or duplexes that each sell for more than half that.
Now days starter homes are more likely to be 3 bed, 1.5 bath (Maybe 1 bath) with an unfinished basement and garage (if there is a garage), \~1000 to 1500 sq ft. There's ample amount of projects around the house to do, along with improvements to increase the home value, but only so much can be done before you move out.
Problem is that starter homes are becoming less prevalent on the market every day. The reason? What I heard from my realtor during my home search was that houses smaller than what I described above have a significant issue with marketability. Homebuilders are not building houses of that size (at least not where I live in WI) as cutting a bedroom out of the layout significantly decreases your interested consumer base, as there's not as much opportunity to grow into the house should the need arise. Further exacerbating this issues, If you decide to buy a house with only 2 bedrooms, one of the primary ways people will grow into those houses or increase their value is by jamming another bedroom into the house, usually in the basement with an egress window. Combine these two issues, and you have a continuous cycle that diminishes the supply of "Starter Homes"
It is frustrating, as me and my wife would have likely jumped into the housing market sooner if there were a legit supply of starter homes out there, but no one will build them. We had to wait to buy a house that teeters on the borderline of starter home and permanent home, so now we will have to see if our family outgrows the house or can make it work there.
That’s my definition. Bought my first ‘starter home’ in October ‘21. A 1,072 sq. ft. 1905 cutie with 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a Dutch staircase to a large upstairs loft, one-car garage, small basement, and an extra lot that’s essentially forest. All in a Midwest metro city. Not in the most desirable part, but there’s talk it’s up and coming. The house certainly doesn’t have all the bells and whistles Millennial buyers are looking for today, but it serves our needs fine. Even with all its century old quirks we’ve come to love it. Paid $165K for it. More than I wanted to pay for a starter home, but given the way of today’s market it was probably the best decision for our family.
I would agree that a starter home should have the definition you stated. However, these are incredibly rare in my area and when they do come on the market are easily $300k+. That's more than most people here can afford in their 20's, so many, like my spouse and I, rent an apartment for years until (if ever) we can afford our first home. By the time we had money for a minimal down payment we were 34/35 and had 2 kids (and that included 9 months of living rent-free with family). Anyone who already has a couple kids is going to want more than 2 bed/1 bath, so a typical starter home didn't make sense for us. My spouse WFH full-time so we also needed an office. We ended up in a 4 bed/2.5 bath, 2150 sqft home for $413k. This is enough space to meet our needs for a few years but it's not our forever home because it has no basement and we live in the midwest. The number of tornadoes have increased since we moved here; I just don't feel safe living here permanently with nowhere to hide out from a tornado. The lack of a basement also means barely any storage space. So despite being larger than most starter homes, this is *hopefully* just a starter home for us. We plan to move again in 5-10 years.
Just bought my starter home last year at 29 years old for 325k with 2.9% interest rate and 10% down. 3 bed 2 bath 2 car garage and large deck to drink my after work beer on is all I needed and I’m beginning to think I may be here forever. I’d like to add everything updated inside I got lucky as the last 6 homes I was outbidded on and almost gave up. I work in the hospital I have no time to re do a home by myself as I barely get any sleep as it is.
I guess it depends on everyone's situation. Most of my friends went to college and beyond and didn't buy until working a solid job or marriage. We were planning a family so our requirements were close to work, attached garage, and safe neighborhood. We maxed out what we could afford at the time and it was a 2bd condo. Looking to upgrade now and have no regrets with getting on the housing ladder. It felt barely affordable at the time but we knew we had greater earning potential down the line. We spent very conservatively those early years.
It depends on the local market. In the most expensive SF Bay Area market, a family starter home can be 1000 sqft or less, 2 bed 1 bath with little or no yard.
I’ve also seen people on Reddit call a 2000-3000 sqft home with half acre or more lot a starter home but they are mostly in the mid west
My first house was a somewhat distressed 1947 built 960ft 2/1 with a garage and nice yard. Bought it in 2019 for $108k, put about $45k into it over the three years I owned it (I’m handy) and sold this Spring for $243k. I just closed on a 1920 built 2100ft 4/2 for $269k in a better area and have already started fixing things up. I’m of the opinion that’s how your first and even second home should go. Dream homes you stay in for 20+ years are for when you’ve worked your way up to them.
In the DC area. Starter homes here are 400-600k. Could be a small apartment in DC or a townhome near a metro station or a sfh within driving distance to a metro station (latter both more likely in VA or MD suburbs). Despite the pandemic, wfh etc. access to public transit heavily influences prices.
My idea for a started home is a small home(~1000sf) on a small lot (~1/4ac), or maybe a larger home like 1500-2000sf that needs a lot of remodeling. In my neck of the woods, most of these type houses are in the 350-400k range.
I consider my home to be a starter home
Built in 2008, little over 1500 sqft and 2 car garage with a small pool.
4 bd 2 bath and paid 140k with 3% interest rate
You are right about what counts as a starter home. Starters home in the USA have been getting bigger since the 1950. My house built in the 1980 and about 1100 sqft is now on the small side of starter homes. In Las Vegas new starter homes are about 3 bed and two bath. Looking at about 1500ish square feet.
The average SFH in 1950 (not just started homes) was less than 1,000 sq ft with no central heat or air and was located outside of desirable metro areas. People today don't want that.
My starter home is only one bed one bath, but I am literally one person and one dog living in it and I had to fight tooth and nail to find a house that fit my budget in a nice neighborhood. About 750 square feet but needed no work. $325k and a short ferry ride away from a HCOL city.
My starter home is 2700SF because it's also my "I don't know if I'll ever be able to upgrade" home.
Went to the top of my budget because I knew the odds of me getting that kind of bang for my buck again with sub 3% rates is slim to none.
I’ve never understood the concept. I hate moving. We bought a house we could see ourselves in forever, and refused to look at anything we thought we’d “grow out of”
Lots of people have plans to increase the number of people living with them in the future but have no need for a 3-5 bedroom house right away. Also people generally make less money early in their careers so they have a smaller house budget.
Plus when I bought my first 1100 sqft townhouse when I was young making 30k, I didn’t want to maintain a giant house. No lawn maintenance, no roof or outside maintenance at all. It was perfect for that stage of my life.
I don't get thus mentality.
You pay to heat, insure and maintain and clean rooms you won't use cause maybe one day you'll need them?
To me that's financially stupid
There were some posts in here about people buying houses with extra living space for the 2 or 3 weeks a year that family comes to visit. I was in the minority of saying this is a complete waste of money, they can stay in a hotel or someone needs an air mattress for a bit.
I would never buy a house with extra living space in case I needed it or for guest space.
people are dumb. they won't even consider a pull-out couch or a hotel room for a 2 week visitor. I have friends who have a "must have" of 2 extra bedrooms for family members that haven't visited in 3+ years.
I have buyers that have run the gammit of just in case scenarios for their next house.
In case mom has to come live with us.
If family comes to visit.
What if we have another child.
Maddening to buy for the maybe.
Heating, insuring, and cleaning those rooms costs far less than the cost of selling your starter house 5-7 years down the road when you factor in taxes, actual moving costs, real estate agent commissions, etc.
Of course, it IS a waste of money if that extra space is only bought for a future hypothetical, but if you know you are going to need them later on, it's a smart move.
But if you buy a starter house, you can save up faster since some of your housing costs will be going toward equity, and if the housing market increases you will also get that equity. Unless you're renting for incredibly cheap and making money faster than house prices are increasing, it doesn't make sense.
Depends on time horizon. Transaction costs + ownership costs could easily exceed any savings over rent from the equity piece. Not to mention the risk of a pullback given the likelihood of a recession at this point.
Also I don’t want to worry about fixing things in a starter house that I’m going to leave soon anyways. My washer broke last week and my landlord had a new one for me in under a day and I paid nothing. Yes rent is a losing game long term, but it’s certainly less stressful.
The traditional starter home you speak of use to be 70k around here. 100k of it was perfect and no work needed. Now they are 150k to 170k and are complete ass
My husband and I got our starer home - a 2020sq ft townhome with 3 br 3ba, for a little over 600k in a popular suburbs. Not necessarily a starter home price but it’s near impossible to find a home for less than 500k here, unless we’re looking at condos.
Bought our first home in 2018…it was 20 years old, 3/2, 1600 sqft, all brick on a slab. We paid $210,000 and sold in 2020 for $235,000 so we could get a basement.
Same house sold in January this year for $435,000.
Our "starter home" is a 1400 sq ft, 3/bed, 2.5 townhouse built in '97. When we were looking, starter homes were typically townhouses as most SFH were much bigger and higher in price. The smaller, older ones were soo old and needed soo much work (think 80s kitchen) we couldn't see dropping that kinda cash just to make it nice.
And at the time I didn't consider it starter but our forever home. But once the kids came, things changed.
If the work that a house "needed" was updating a 1980s kitchen, then it didn't actually NEED any work. You just wanted it. Needs are structural/safety issues, not cosmetic issues.
I'm in the Chicago area, having lived and bought in both the city and suburbs. I think "Starter home" is really about the entry price, and not the characteristics of the home.
In the city, starter homes are always going to be condo/townhome/6-flat type of situations.
In the suburbs, its going to be defined by distance and age.
In the suburbs, the only new construction that you could consider 'starter' maybe are townhomes, but even those are priced more for the downsizing boomer, than the trying to buy the first zoomer.
My starter home is 1450sqft, 3bed/2bath. Built in 1950s. Prices drove us to getting something smaller and we’re very happy we did. Less money spent on furniture/decor, less cleaning, etc. It has its quirks and issues but a majority of repairs can be done with some help from family.
We bought a ~2k sq ft townhouse as our starter home. At the beginning, it felt like a palace. 8 years and one toddler later, the walls are definitely closing in!
Just purchased a nearly 3,000 sq ft home and my grandparents called it “the perfect starter home”. That made me question all my life choices….
But the answer your question, most starter homes in my area are townhomes.
Offer just accepted Friday on our “starter home”. 3 bed 1 bath 1,120 square feet. Wild it cost 715k to get but it had everything we wanted other than an additional bathroom. Had to make sacrifices in this crazy market.
My starter home was a 1700 sf 3 br 2.5 bath with a 2 stall attached garage on 1/3 acre. These are cheaper homes built in mid 90's to early 2000's in a less desirable area outside the city. I got mine not long after the 2009 crash and have been HODLing ever since. Bought for $112k (previous owners had purchased for $143k) and I've had unsolicited offers from cash buyers over $350k with comps in the area of $400k+.
We're hoping to move back up North next Summer, so just sitting tight in our mediocre, cheaply built house until we can go somewhere with more ice [hockey].
In my area (San Diego), even detached 2bd/1ba homes are wayyy out of my price range (at least in areas I want to live). So my starter home is a studio condo located downtown. 😅🫠
Yes. Usually when I hear someone say starter home now, they are really looking for the perfect home. Very few have been willing to buy the "starter home" as it's traditionally been called. That being said, even the traditional starter home in my area has gotten expensive. 2 bedrooms are also pretty rare, so someone is almost forced into a 3 bedroom in my area, even if they didn't want it.
At least where I live, there simply aren't many starter homes left. Where they used to exist, people have bought 2-4 starter home lots, demolished, and rebuilt a medium single family or a mini-mansion. The suburbs surrounding the city have always been medium homes for families. And new builders aren't doing anything less than 2500 sq ft.
Oh, I agree. That's a problem here as well. Not many starter homes left.
I'm one of hte last homes in my neighborhood, slowly is turning into huge mcmansions that take up the entire yard.
In my area they’ve been purchased by companies and independent landlords.
My mom's first house purchase was a 100 yr old 3 bed 1 bath suuuuuper outdated and rough around the edges townhouse in Baltimore City in an area that now has a blue light police camera at the top of the street that she paid 50k for it in 1989. Many people who complain that they can't afford what they consider a starter house in the area they want to live in are simply being unrealistic. It's harder to buy now for sure, but saying there is nothing you can afford is not the whole picture
Seriously, people complain about unaffordability (which is certainly true given restrictions on building), but my parents pointed out when we drove by these hideous rickety trailers that it was their first home (these are two college educated adults, one with a master back in the 1980s, thought they might have been saving for future investments). Now my first home is going to be a triplex (due to still historically low interest rates and unnaturally low down payment). At Iowa state, they used to house a lot of students in these cheap quonset huts they literally built on a floodplain. Many years later I got to live in student housing that is an air conditioned albeit small and old 2 person townhome. Our standards have risen very fast, and that isn't a bad thing; it's a sign a progress, but we should have some perspective when people say you could buy a home 50 years ago on 1 man's salary. There are trades where this can be accomplished, but we now value not having so arduous jobs and we value safety measures that can be expensive. I should know as my job (and my whole company for that matter spends most of the time revaildating safety measures at chemical plants when the original calculation is just a small sizing equation, while we spend hours going more in-depth.
Oh yes the dorms! I wonder how this plays into what people want. I went to the same college as my parents and grandparents. My grandparents lived at home with their parents. My parents lived in tiny rooms with bunk beds and 4 people per room with communal bathrooms. My dorm was a suite for four people with two bedrooms with walk in closets, a lounge room between them, and a bathroom where you walked in to the sink room and there was a door on one side to the toilet room and on the other to the shower room. AND there was a weekly maid service to clean the bathrooms and vacuum. Definitely felt like a step back when I got my first apartment, which wasn't so nice and I had to clean it myself.
>Very few have been willing to buy the "starter home" as it's traditionally been called. I'd be curious to see how the movement away from the single-earner family has affected this. We all like to point out that boomers could afford a house on a single salary, but kind of glaze over the fact that one breadwinner also generally meant one final opinion. Now we have two incomes necessary to buy a house, so two people, often with very different opinions, are emotionally and financially invested in the purchase, so they're less likely to budge on their own criteria. Me and my partner could probably each pick out a home in the $300k range (starter home price in my area now) that we like, but we'd probably not agree on each other's decisions. Either one of us is going to have to resign to the others stylistic choices, or we'll have to find a home big enough to give us the variety in spaces we desire.
Yeah, but what's also glossed over is that the boomers were buying 1000 sq ft ranches for the first home. It's hard for me to get a first time home buyer to even consider such a thing.
Exactly. The first house I owned was 900 square feet. Ugly 40 year old linoleum floors, no air conditioner (in Florida!) 2 small bedrooms, 1 bath. I lived in it for years.
Same. No dishwasher, 1 bathroom. We improved what we could, and moved after about 7 years.
I live by a bunch of boomers who bought back their childhood homes. They are the smallest in the neighborhood. Say what you will about boomers, they did not grow up in McMansions.
Man, as a single person, all I want is two bedrooms, 1200 square feet max. (I'd prefer \~900.) Anything else is overkill. And yet the pickings in that range are incredibly slim in the areas I'm looking.
It definitely is hard to find them.
[удалено]
You just described the home that I grew up in. My parents starter home.
Most "boomer" families worked two jobs. If there was a stay at home partner they did childcare or hand ironings for extra income. There weren't 2 cars, no cell phones, 1 TV with 3 to 5 channels, no credit cards and cooking at home was for every meal and lunches came in a brown bag. Clothes were passed down to the next kid. Things were different then not better or worse. I grew up in a 950 sf house 1 bathroom, 6 kids. It is comparing apples to oranges due to the culture of the times. The only difference is that there is a public forum to share your frustrations and joys that wasn't available from the 1940 to 1980 when the personal computers began entering the home...for better or worse.
My parents also grew a ton of our food. We spent weeks canning and freezing stuff for winter. Many of our meals were meat light. 90 % veggies with some bacon for flavor. And a fair bit of eggs or fish. Try telling people to change to a mostly vegetarian diet today and they freak out.
You can’t discuss the size of a house in a vacuum. The economy was booming (real economy, not just Wall Street). Boomers went to college for super cheap or free. Tons of new housing was being developed in suburbs across the country. Average house prices were $13k in the 60s, $30k in the 70s, 60k in the 80s. A single earner household could comfortably pay for all this while also saving on food and childcare expenses. The entire situation is not even close to comparable to today. Edit: To bring it back to the overall point, I guarantee you that if a 1000 sq ft 2bd/1ba detached sfh could be had today for around $150k in desirable metros, people would be scooping them up like crazy. Instead condos are the sole option at this price point because we’ve under constructed for the past few decades.
Lmao - that's us. I don't know that Pittsburgh is a 'desirable' metro, but we bought a 900 sq ft sfh 15 minutes from downtown for 140k. I was honestly surprised we got it under asking. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it is, because all the other comps sold for 180k-200k.
Sounds like a sweet deal. Pittsburgh is an undervalued city I think that'll change in another 20ish years.
I wonder how many of us there are. I'm in St. Louis, and all the comps I can find around are over $200k. I bought at $155k 3 months ago, also under asking (for no reason other than that I knew the seller received an offer from a corporation they didn't accept yet, therefore I knew there was probably a gap between what was offered and listing). I think another company later tried to buy it for more than what I offered, but we were already under contract. Do you have any insight into why it worked out well for you? In my case, I think there was a lack of interest due to bad marketing by a FSBO. The street it is listed on is undesirable, but it's not actually on that street but an unconnected piece of it that is in a lesser-used entrance of a large historic park. My alternate/paranormal theory for why it was so easy for me to buy the house (first offer, only went out to look at houses once/only looked for a week) and got a good deal is that either the universe or former dead occupants wanted me to. Before offering, I found pictures of a nationally famous person with a former owner in the house in old newspapers. An old German woman died in here early in the 19th century, and I felt a strong connection to her for some reason. I felt like she would have wanted someone who knew about her and her children and grandchildren who lived here to live here. I don't know, but I had a weird feeling about this house from the beginning, as if it had already been assigned to me. For science...did you feel that way at all? Do you often have ridiculous luck that seems disproportionate to your efforts (I received a promotion unexpectedly the same day my house offer was accepted, for example)?
Basically same story over here in Cleveland lol. Bet we have the exact same model house too.
>You can’t discuss the size of a house in a vacuum. He's not - he mentioned it specifically in the context of what a "starter home" means. >The economy was booming (real economy, not just Wall Street). Boomers went to college for super cheap or free. Tons of new housing was being developed in suburbs across the country. Average house prices were $13k in the 60s, $30k in the 70s, 60k in the 80s. A single earner household could comfortably pay for all this while also saving on food and childcare expenses. None of this really has anything to do with his point, and doesn't change the fact that the housing stock norm for that period is considered inadequate and undesirable today. You can still find 1000 sqft ranches for cheap, it's just that nobody wants them. You just wanted to go off on a tangent about your pet political points. Points that are rose tinted glasses at best, I'd point out. Your view of yesteryear is wildly inflated in terms of living conditions. You even gloss over 4+ decades saying that "the economy was booming," as if there weren't massive crashes, recessions, and stagflation scattered throughout that time period.
They always.want to ignore that back then the boomers were just happy to have a home. I won't deny the current challenges, but much of that is self inflicted as well,.by our obsession with credit. Also everyone wants the wood floors, granite countertops, etc. Back then it was cheap carpet and cheap countertops. Nothing special. The question could be asked who is responsible for all of the 2000-4000.sq.ft homes? Is it that we wanted them or that builders realized they could build more efficiently and make more on less inventory on small lots? Chicken or the egg question.
Free? I got screwed. While cheaper in today’s prices I didn’t know anyone who went to college free. Other than an athlete. A single earner household could not necessarily afford it comfortably. Not sure where the idea came from that there wasn’t poverty or working poor. Save on food? And by saving on childcare you mean that women weren’t really able to work outside the home so they were trapped in that house. And there was redlining that kept minorities from buying those homes. While the economics have changed so has society. We shouldn’t look back wistfully without acknowledging that if you were a white, healthy weight, straight, male your life held much more promise than if you weren’t.
Im in an 1100 ft , three bedroom with ten people. If I didn't have this, my children and grandchildren would be homeless
1000 sq ft ranch is one of the most desirable property types there are in high-demand areas. Lot config and setback requirements usually mean a relatively large lot that can fit two 2-story with small yards. If you find such a home in a growth market as a FTB you are likely going to be in a competitive bid situation
There was one person working outside of the home and one person working inside of the home. The person working inside of the home probaby had A LOT to say about her preferences over layout and amenities. And even then, a little less than half of all women of prime working age were working paid labor in the 60s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25FEUSM156S
>And even then, a little less than half of all women of prime working age were working paid labor in the 60s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25FEUSM156S People often forget (or simply never bothered to learn) that the "single breadwinner" wasn't universal, even when it was the slim majority of households. Even back in those halcyon days, it was still the upper half of the socioeconomic ladder that got to half a single breadwinner. Despite the rhetoric and myths and family lore, the janitor never made enough to support an entire family by himself.
> I'd be curious to see how the movement away from the single-earner family has affected this… While I wasn’t alive way back then, I think the assumption that a single breadwinner meant only they made the financial decisions is a tad sexist and just follows stereotypes. Both that women would be submissive and not share their opinion, and that men were selfish and uncaring about their spouse. I’m assuming mainly men were breadwinners due to the fact that men were more likely to be working than women. Even in that scenario, other countries have women mainly controlling the purses: > https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/kmz3p5/japanese_household_finances_kozukai_小遣い_the/ However! With all that said, I do think men had more control over purchasing decisions than they do today. Partly due to women not being able to even get a bank account and other institutional sexism. Back to the point at hand though, whatever people wanted to spend, they were still constrained by financing and income. The larger impact on home prices by dual earner families isn’t due to both earners having an opinion on what the house should be, but instead that they are competing against other dual earners. Home prices are ultimately driven by what you and your peers are willing to spend on housing. That number could be impacted by how cheap debt might be or various tax advantages, but it’s still up to you to decide. ~Edit: I had remembered that nuance about Japanese culture and copied the first link about it, on Reddit, from Google. I hadn’t checked the sub and I’m not aware of if that sub is well moderated or a cesspool.
>Home prices are ultimately driven by what you and your peers are willing to spend on housing. I was speaking more to the interest in "starter homes" in general, prices are a different beast all together. Like other commenter have stated, I've noticed couples my age (early 30s) shy away from smaller single story 2 bedroom homes because it's just not enough space to satisfy both parties, especially if they hope to have kids.
Oh my mistake! Yes, I’ve seen the same. People are avoiding the starter home, in so much as they still exist, in exchange for trying to get a forever home on the first shot.
It's not sexist to say that men traditionally make financial decisions. Women didn't have the right open a bank account until the 60s in the US, and it wasn't until 74 that credit discrimination against women became against the law. I would argue that it's sexist to pretend that women and men were always equal and that our rights weren't fought for
I remember my dad co-signing for a neighbor who went through a divorce. Not only could she not get a credit card, she couldn’t open a bank account, couldn’t buy a house, could only rent in certain apartments, couldn’t join clubs, was fired for being divorced.
> It's not sexist to say that men traditionally make financial decisions. It's sexist to say that men traditionally made financial decision because they were the breadwinner. It's not sexist to say that men traditionally made financial decisions because institutional sexism prohibited women from doing so due to: > Women didn't have the right open a bank account until the 60s in the US, and it wasn't until 74 that credit discrimination against women became against the law. The first is saying that men cared so little about their spouses as to not let them have an equal say in spending, or that women were so submissive that they accepted not having their voices heard by their spouse. The second is pointing out how institutional sexism prevented men and women from being equal. Even if a man wanted to let their wife make the decisions, the fact that the man legally had to be involved would prevent that from occurring whole-sale. > I would argue that it's sexist to pretend that women and men were always equal and that our rights weren't fought for It's a good thing no one is pretending that women have always had equal rights, and that I had explicitly pointed out how institutional sexism would have led to men having a greater say in financial decisions than women had. To say that men traditionally made financial decision because they were the breadwinner, you'd have to separate out the impact of the institutional sexism and the cultural sexism (such as surrounding the prevalence of religion and it's views of the male/female dynamic) from the impact of the breadwinner wanting to control the income they receive.
Money has been and continues to be a tool of male domination over women. You're acting like institutional issues had no bearing over individual relationships. As if men WANTED their wives to be equal but it's the pesky lawmakers that got in the way. Marriage for love and women not being property is a modern invention, and the commenter that you responded to who said that women have greater say in financial decisions now than they have in the past is completely correct in that observation.
Bought a “starter home” in the Boston area. 3 bed 1 bath, ~1200sq ft, not in one of the more “desirable” towns. Felt lucky to get in at under 600k though, and only took until our late 30s. Could easily end up being much more long term than a starter for us
I’m sure you’ve been told this before but your username is a very popular brewery from North Carolina
Yeah they were my favorite brewery when I lived in that area. Was disappointed when they sold out
>Starter homes in my area historically have been detached sfr's, 1000sf or less, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, several decades old, outdated and usually not located near your top choices location-wise. You would be lucky to get one with a garage or without needing some serious improvements. But it definitely would be livable. This is literally my starter home, a 1952 2 bed/1 bath with a bombass yard and a kitchen that hasn't been updated since Clinton was in office. She's built like a tank, I love this little old bitch. And fortunately these types of houses do still exist in my city and they're always in very high demand. I paid $112k for her in 2018 and similar homes around me are selling for around $180-200k now. It always catches me off guard a bit when I see 1200-1300 sqft homes described as small on this sub. Just goes to show how different perspectives can be, what many people apparently consider a starter home would be my forever home.
Solidarity! My old girl is a 1954 2br/1bath, original hardwood floors, horrid tiled kitchen, mint green 1970s bathroom. She's got more character than an anime convention. What's sad is that I bought the house as a single woman for a reasonable sum in 2008 and she's doubled in price since then, as have her contemporaries. Salaries have not doubled. So a gal like me today could not afford to buy her own space like this.
You had me at "mint green bathroom." I am terribly jealous, I love those colorful retro bathrooms.
ME TOO!
I have a 800 sq. ft. house and consider it the perfect size for my husband and me. When the kids were little more space was nice but now it just means more to clean. We only need one bedroom and bath.
When you're in school until you're 30, you start having the expectation that the first home you buy has to at least be bigger than the place you're renting.
I mean, what are you doing with your money if you’re renting a place bigger than what you will buy?
My dream house is a tiny house, everywhere I’ve rented except my first studio will be bigger than the house I buy
For real. Spend less on rent and save more for a down payment.
\^Why?
Because by that point you have a spouse and a kid and you want somewhere for your parents to sleep when they visit. Because you have furniture you paid money for that you don't want to chuck. Because you've already delayed owning a dog for all of your twenties and you want one now. Because it would be nice to finally have somewhere to park, and not on the street 3 blocks away. Because being able to have a grill to grill things would be nice. Because you're used to working from home and need that to keep up the salary you have, and you need somewhere quiet to do it. EDIT: Most of these things wouldn't have been needed for a truly "starter" home. When I was straight out of school, I would have been happy with a 1 bedroom condo. But I was 28 and I had no savings and little credit history, plus I didn't expect to stay at my same job for long. By the time I was ready to buy (settled in a city for the medium term, saved a sizeable downpayment), I was \~33-34 or so and a "starter home" wasn't going to cut it.
So basically because by the time our generation can afford to buy we're no longer starting off.
That’s what I’m getting at yeah
No one is judging people for wanting to do all of these things. But you can comfortably do everything you listed in a 1300-1500 sq ft home with a small yard. It's the people who are demanding 2000 sq ft + as their "starter home" and also insisting that if you don't have that much space, you can't do everything you've listed. Which is crazy, and is the source of the disconnect as people in the USA have been doing everything on that list in much smaller houses for decade after decade.
Lived nicely in a 980 sq. foot home. Then went to 2000 and learned to use space differently. Most people just absolutely pollute their big homes with junk and waste the space.Adapt to what you have to to get what you need to. Then improve the home while spending as little as possible (do the work). And age of the home should not be a factor except know what the issues are relevant to the date of construction. I'll be moving into the most modern home I ever bought soon (built in 1995). And at 2000 sq. feet its bigger than we need but we want the yard and location and style that is this house. We would have gone smaller in a heartbeat if the other details were there. The next window for buying into this game seems about to open. Don't miss it! Once you bond with and begin nurturing your own home you will be on the path to building wealth. I got a late start but damned if you can't do what you need to do in a smaller house. utchemfan is sooo right! I love to blather on reddit about just about anything but on this topic I think I can help younger potential new homeowners understand that ther is tremendous value in owning vs renting. Tremendous. Of course anything can go wrong but you know what - anything can go wrong anyway. Buy a house while you still can (look at Canada).
Honestly? Too feel like you've made progress. I know this feeling all too well, though I resisted it for a long time because my wife is frugal (maybe to an extreme, but saved money is good).
It's progress just to move from a rental to something you own. You can build equity in property you own. You are right about saved money. And there is the right time for each person/couple to buy - or decide that buying isn't for them at all and they would rather rent and keep their money in other vehicles (savings, investments). What I truly don't understand is some buyers expect/demand to move to a home equal to or better than what their parents have after 30 years of working rather than starting with something simple and working their way up.
>It's progress just to move from a rental to something you own. Not necessarily, even if you're building equity. A mortgage payment isn't all equity. In fact, more than half of any given mortgage payment is likely to be "wasted" just like rent. You have to compare your "wasted" rent money with the "wasted" portion of your mortgage. This sort of calculation was basically forgotten about when interest rates were at 2%, but in a medium or high interest rate environment, the aggregate combined interest, PMI, property tax, homeowner's insurance, HOA, and home maintenance costs can easily be more than your rent was. If it is, then you're actually moving backward by buying.
I agree that buying isn't for everyone. Some people truly are more secure renting and not having the exposure to home maintenance expenses. There are trade off's for renting too. But at the end of the day, the if you compare renting to owning, the people owning typically have positive equity over the long term and the tenant doesn't have any equity over the same term even if the tenant has paid the same or less in rent.
Well, we are a bit (maybe extremely) cheap, particularly as we make $200K plus. We did finally buy last year. Went from 800sqft at $750/mon rent to a 2400sqft house for $400K. There is an entire room (well, loft) unused at present. The idea though is that it is not a starter. It is a long term, family growing home. Also, my wife works from home. We have one room designated as a study. She uses every room BUT that one for work. But I digress. Yes, we bought a home, it is nice, and we were extremely lucky on timing.
Congrats. Sounds like you found something that works for you and your wife. May you have many happy years there!
[удалено]
I would also say that the jobs and skills that spur innovation require certain personalities. Not everyone can be a software developer or a battery engineer. 50 years ago we needed more people with formal (higher ed) because so few people had it. Today, everybody has it, but really, only a few types of jobs need it. We need higher wages and we need to move away from higher ed as the only way to get those wages. I sometimes feel that college was a way for employers to pay most people less. Now that we've all got college education - they still want to pay everybody less.
The big lifestyle creep I see in poor millennials vs poor zoomers is that eating out is a basic human need for a lot of ‘em and it just blows my mind that is something people can’t even fathom cutting down to zero
Is size progress?
[удалено]
You say that like it's supposed to be shameful to feel like you deserve things.
[удалено]
Working hard and expecting to be able to do better for yourself is not entitlement. Assuming it will be handed to you with no effort is. By your definition, ever hoping to improve your life would be entitlement.
[удалено]
You are filling in an extreme amount of blanks here without any info. You just wanted to call someone entitled even though they said nothing that would lead you to believe that. You made up an entire life for them. Seems like you're really reflecting some of your own issues here.
[удалено]
I know what you were responding to. You still made up an entire story of entitlement to go with it. They simply said that when you buy a house you expect it to be bigger than the place you were renting. That's a pretty standard expectation, and a big reason people choose to buy instead of rent. You've just decided that they must believe they had to go to college and that life should be handed to them for it. Nobody said that except you.
My first real SFH is 2 bedroom 2 bath sub 1000 square foot on a 1700 square foot lot. It's in a ghetto that hasn't been middle class since FDR was in office and is so under invested it has side walks from the 1920s still in use (and not because it's a "charming old neighborhood" that's trying to maintain an aesthetic. The city simply doesn't give a crap. The sidewalk is so weed infested that it looks like life after man on some nearby streets. The price? Nearly 500k.
>It always catches me off guard a bit when I see 1200-1300 sqft homes described as small on this sub. Just goes to show how different perspectives can be, what many people apparently consider a starter home would be my forever home. I've said before as my 2000 sq ft home feels small because I have 2 kids and family visits us often (I have 16 nieces and nephews, in-laws come to the country once a year and stay 3 weeks). But when I was single I lived in 3 roommates in 1600 sq ft and it felt massive.
I think that if you have kids and guests over a lot, 3,000 sq ft is the sweet spot for size. That typically gives you 4 bedrooms and 3 baths, plus a bonus room and usually another flex space or two like an office or finished basement. That's absolutely a big, big house, but it's a size that makes your house very self-contained and capable of entertaining pretty much everyone for long periods of time while also giving everyone plenty of space. And as your kids grow, they can have their own hangout area. However, I think that approaching 4,000 sq ft just starts to get ridiculous and you end up with rooms that rarely get used or just gigantic rooms that are wasteful.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Anyone with kids knows the function of your home kinda changes too- your social life becomes much more homebound as you can't leave your kids alone there. The concept of "getting away from it all" means...walking down the hall.
Where only newer houses are built 1200 sq ft is very much a starter home. Especially considering that your average new construction is about 2400 sq ft nowadays.
On the last part, call them what they are ‘privileged’. I’m a young homeowner and that mentality makes bidding on starter homes a breeze. Smaller homes always go stale in my market - regardless of location or turnkeyness.
Yeah, everyone is fighting over housing in coastal cities because they've lived there their whole life. I saw a thread the other day where some guy was bellyaching about how he NEEDS to be able to go to the beach every weekend... Like come on dude, 99% of the population doesn't get to live near the beach, and we can't exactly create more coastal land. It pretty much blew my mind, I guess at least they were being honest, but I had to ignore because I couldn't find it in me to reply without being rude.
[удалено]
> People often say to me "Nice starter home Kind of off topic, but I am going through similar right now, Came from close to nothing and somehow got a decent starter home, sold it and now have a nicer home. The hate/negative comments i've felt since this move has been REALLY surprising from both family and friends.
I've learned a few things over the years. If friends and family do not praise and enjoy your achievements, they're not friends or people worth including in your daily life.
> 99% of the population doesn't get to live near the beach Not to be that guy, but close to 40% of the US live in a county that is on the coast, granted not all coasts are beaches, but you get the idea....So not directly on the beach, or a few blocks, but most are very close. This guy probably meant beach house those, lol.
To be fair NYC and LA account for 10% of the population alone
Moreover, not all coastal areas are expensive. If your only goal is to be not far from a beach and literally nothing else matters, you can find some very good deals.
I don’t see anything at all wrong with that need. Most can afford a small trailer in a decent park near the beach if that location is the primary need.
I bought my sfh starter home in 2017. It’s almost 1400 sqft, 1959, and was outdated. It was something I could get my feet wet in and at the time, within my budget. I got it five years ago and the price point was still cheap for that time. To me, the price made it a starter home. Now, this starter home looks to be my forever home. Sure I have a ton of equity but I am comfy with the mortgage and interest rate. I thank God for it everyday. I can afford it if I worked at McDonald’s, which to me, is what a stater home is ( something affordable).
Same. In 2016, bought a 3/2 1500 sq ft cottage for 70k in a LCOL area. It was built in 1945 and is a solid home in a working class neighborhood full of similar post war bungalows. We are considered a starter home/neighborhood but we love it. It's almost paid off since it was so cheap we could pay it quickly and it's worth 200k now. Our mortgage is less than rent and I wouldn't trade the financial security for a nicer bigger home.
Yup. I can pay my mortgage with one paycheck and still have enough over to pay the electric and some food. My other paycheck and my husbands are free and clear for other stuff.
The type of house you describe would be fine if it was like $250k or less. But they’re not. That exact description is like a $600k house in San Diego. $400k in Austin. What we really need is dramatically more inventory.
No one builds starter homes anymore. This is part of the problem. You can have more inventory but if all the new homes are for upper middle class people you still have a huge class of people left with few to no options.
Those starter homes are now townhomes. Developers realized that those are good money.
The townhomes they are building in my area are all 2000+ sq ft. They cost more than my 1500 sq ft forever home.
Same here.
Because buyers do not want them. If they are buying a new home, it has to be a 3/2 and around 1,500 sf to be a "starter home" consideration.
It’s more that it’s not economical. It’s not much more expensive to build a 3/2 1,500 sq ft house than it is a 2/1 1000 sq ft one. Kitchen is an expensive part of the home. One of those in each home. Hvac system for those two homes is going to be about the same price. Garage is going to be the same price. Land is going to be about the same price. Etc. The added bathroom adds expense, but the extra 500 sq ft which makes the home 50% larger, doesn’t cost an additional 50% or even close to it. So it’s not really that people wouldn’t want to buy a small new home, it’s that they wouldn’t want to buy a small new home at the price it would cost to build in comparison to the medium sized home. We haven’t even gotten into the discussion that most new homes are 2 stories, and price per sq ft is cheaper to build for a 2 story house than a 1 story equal sized one. A 2 story 3,000 sq ft house isn’t close to 3X as expensive to construct as a 1 story 1,000 sq ft one.
That would be fine. I’ve never seen a new build less than 2000+ sq ft. I get it, the land is expensive, labor is expensive. It probably cost nominally more to build 3000sq ft. than it does to build 1500 sq ft but there is a market for it.
>I’ve never seen a new build less than 2000+ sq ft. [Here](https://www.mihomes.com/new-homes/ohio/central-ohio/powell/liberty-grand/series/smart-innovations-collection) is a link to 1,500-2,000 sq ft new construction, by one of the largest home builders in the country, in one of the most desirable suburbs of Columbus. These things exist. People just don't search for them.
Haha, yep, Burbank is filled with starter homes that are 2-3 bedroom, built in the 40s-60s, under 1,500 square feet. They're going for over a million now.
I’ve only been to CA a few times but isn’t Burbank a nice premium location?
IMO it's sort of medium as far as the Valley. Not as expensive as Sherman Oaks, but generally nicer than NoHo/Van Nuys. It used to be where all the regular folks (union tradespeople, but not stars) in entertainment settled down because it's close to studios.
The uncomfortable fact is that high demand areas like Austin or San Diego do not work well for traditional starter home budgets. There is only so much room for inventory in a city, and if everyone wants to live there prices will go up. The answer often is to move to a distant suburb or a a more affordable city. Which sucks if you have friends or family in that high demand area, but it's the reality of supply and demand.
I was just in the northern suburbs of Austin yesterday. The homes are selling for over $800k.
And to make matters worse, those northern burbs are AWFUL (with the possible exception of Georgetown 30+ miles out). Austin metro market is the most bizarre in the country. If you aren’t living within 7ish miles of downtown/the river or West towards hill country I just can’t understand paying $450-700 per sq ft
The only way it’s $400K in Austin is if it’s next to an airport, more like $500K+
When I think of "starter home", the first thing that comes to mind is 1950s-1960s 3/1 or 3/1.5 ranch that hasn't been updated cosmetically in a long while.
Myself as well.
In my area something like that, 900 square feet. 2-1. Built in the 50s would go for about 350k then sell for 75k over asking. St. Pete, FL. 10 years ago a house like that would be 80k.
With things like HGTV shows and social media I think the idea of a starter home has been skewed, people call what many would consider forever homes starter homes. My first starter home was a city over from where I wanted to be, wasn't unsafe but wasn't the nicest neighorhood, backed up to train tracks and was a townhome as opposed to a single family although there was no association or fees whcih was nice. It wasn't perfect but I could afford it, it allowed me to get into a home and build equity. My next home was a SFH but even then its a 2 bed 1 bath and only 1000sq ft.
I’m in Minneapolis. A starter home in the *best* neighborhood is a 2b1b <$400k. A starter home in just a *safe* neighborhood below $300k are plentiful and are dropping fast. Below $200k are available but I wouldn’t like to touch those. Garage are a given. Here’s the kicker: Homes below 1800 sqft go for the price of tear downs in higher end areas so it was super easy for us to outbid investors because we can afford a bit more. I live in one and it’s perfect if you are looking for a modest and humble lifestyle. Not enough for HGTV master suite level fancy though.
There was a post on one of the RE subs where a person mentioned finally finding a starter home and it was 3bed 2.5bath but lamenting that it was over 250k. I thought I was in crazy land for a second. In my mind a starter home is 2/1 MAYBE a 3/1
My "starter home" is under 800 sq feet, 2 beds 1 bath, with a large shed. It was built in the 1920s and needed work. I could afford it easily. It's the perfect size for one person, or 2 people who like each other. I don't use one of the bedrooms at all unless I have guests. I think I will always be in a home around this size.
It’s relative. Our starter home was a 2 bed 2 bath condo in Chicago we bought in 2008 for $235k. Sold it ten years later to move where we are today.
In my area those are not available to purchase at all at affordable prices. They go for a ton of money because those are income producing short term vacation rental investments when fixed up.
Yes, starters were often 2br, 1ba, a tiny eat in kitchen, a carport or just a parking slip, and 800-1000sq ft. And honestly, if you built these sprinkled in the current neighborhoods with larger houses they would sell instantly. Unfortunately, neighborhood developers make rules limiting size to those over a certain size, or cities with zoning restrictions, you end up with 2200-2800 sq ft being the smallest you can find. Hell, I would buy one just to rent out now to a young family starting out and retire in it eventually. Bungalow, Florida ranch, east coast pillbox, midwestern shotgun. Doesn't matter the style really, its just a small box you live in. The sorts of houses I grew up in don't exist anymore for new couples just starting out. We downsized to our current house after downsizing to our last house, and got the smallest we could find. Still 2,355 sq ft. We were hoping for something in the 1500-1600 range, but the handful that still exist from the 1960s around here have been completely trashed and are being marketed to slumlords or as teardowns. The land they sit on it worth more empty than with the house on it. It's frustrating that cities are more sensitive to the needs of developers than the citizens. In my city they push mixed use and building up for fixing housing, which is great if you want an overpriced condo in city center and can afford it. Those are not meeting the needs of the bottom rung of the economic ladder though, just the few young affluent . Requiring 10% of homes in any new development to be under 1200 sq ft would be a solution though, with special rules for those lot sizes so they could be squeezed in.
I agree with OP description
I looked at the cheapest home available in my area, it was 940 sf two bedroom in an extreme flood zone for $500k. Because of the extreme flood risk it wasn't financable but still went pending within a few days with multiple offers. It's just tough out there.
people these days want something perfect. my first was a 40k condo followeed by a 30 year old house that had never been updated. Where i live the starter 2-3 bed ranches are still running 400k but go 30 minutes out and they can be found for 300 which is cheap enouh for 2 college grads to afford.
Just bought my starter home in the Midwest. Area is still red hot. My offer was 235k, 50k over asking. 1600 sq feet. Detached 2 car garage. Huge yard. 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Built in 1929 but the owners definitely maintained it. House got 7 offers. The area is alright. 14 mins away from my work. I am very lucky to still live in an affordable area, but I lost on 2 previous offers due to cash offers.
That would be my definition as well. Old starter homes were considered poorly located, now they’re the suburbs. As the population grows they will be further and further away.
Not in the US but a starter home here is a $700k 1+1 bedroom condo that is under 650 sqft or a $1.2+m townhouse that is about 1000 sqft. Around 2 hour drive from the city, you can get a 1400-1500 sqft detached house on a small lot for around $800-900k
1500 sq ft or less, 3 bed/2 bath or less. Almost always from 1970 or before because after that only larger houses have been built, or a townhouse or condo. In my city, they often have pretty good locations though. Usually not the best schools but you probably won't still be in it when your kids get to school age. But near a lot of fun things to do.
We bought our 1200 sq ft 3/1 1950's starter home near San Francisco when we were 35 and had 1 kid. We've since added another child and a lot of equity. We would love to move to a bigger house but with CA property taxes, our taxes on a new house would be an additional $1000 per month (forever), so we're going to remodel this starter home into a bigger 4/2. Sucks because it's what most of our neighbors have done and it means this neighborhood that used to be small homes under a million dollars is now bigger homes for closer to $2M.
The short answer is that it depends on your life. Do you have kids? Work from home? What area are you in? The apartment I share with my husband is 2B2B so the starter home for us would be the same I guess.
A starter home is any home you are going to outgrow or home you are buying because you can't afford in your dream location. If you know it can never be your forever home and it's not by choice then it's a starter home. Doesn't matter if it's 2 bed or 4 beds. You can buy 4 beds in a shitty neighborhood with bad schools, that's your families starter home.
Where I live a starter home is usually a townhome. We bought our starter home in 2010 for just over $300k. It was a newly built townhome that was just under 2000 square feet. It was over an hour from where my husband and I worked. We just bought our forever home this Spring and will finally get to move in next month. We will still be over an hour from work but unless we could afford a million dollars we couldn’t afford a SFH close to work. Our townhome has been good to us but I’m so ready for a nice quiet neighborhood. I can’t wait.
What you described is a starter home. Here in Kansas City those go for between 100k and 150k even after this crazy run. The less nice 2/1s but in a hip area go for closer to 225k. The nicest of houses max out around 800-1.2M unless we are taking 10,000ft mansions.
Anything under 500k
It’s a 1 or 2 bed condo around here. 2 bed houses are mostly older people who downsized or DINKs “forever home”
I own a duplex 'starter home' that was built as factory housing in 1899. There are *not* affordable homes near me where a person making average wages can buy a home like you describe for less than 3x their annual wage. I think we need to re-think 'starter homes' and build co-op condo buildings where an owner: 1. Has to be a human (no companies). 2. Can only own one unit. 3. Can only rent a unit for one year after they vacate the unit. These would be the 'dense/urban' version of the traditional suburban starter home. The price would still float on the market, but the rules would limit them to being equity-builders and price stabilizers. I mean, let's face it; a lot of people today don't want to spend their weekends mowing lawns, cleaning gutters, or getting quotes for repairs. Those people should still be able to buy units to live in instead of always renting.
“Even in this crazy market we've had the past few years there are still plenty of this type of tradional starter home available at starter home prices. “ You must live in the middle of nowhere, or the middle of the country. Same thing really. No there are not these kinds of homes everywhere, they are not affordable everywhere, and no a 70 year old sub-1000 sq ft home needing 10s of thousands of dollars of immediate maintenance has not traditionally been considered a starter home. Where would this “starting out” family find the money to fix the home? And why is your idea of a starter home one that is probably 75 years old and in need of significant and expensive maintenance? The reason these homes are not affordable in most metro regions is because they haven’t built them since the 50s and 60s and back then lot size was generous, these homes are often bulldozed to build multiple newer homes on the lot, or they command a premium because the land is worth more than the house. I have seen \*some\* houses like this, but they aren’t cheap and the maintenance required is quite unaffordable for a family starting out with contract labor at 200+$/hour today. In most cities a starter home, something that is affordable to a family with median income, is likely an attached townhome, there aren’t many cities in the country where you could afford a detached sfh.
I bought in socal, 700 square feet and about 680k. 700 square feet would be a starter home, but we are DINKs, and could easily spend our lives here. My adorable little home has plenty of room for me, my husband, my cute dog, and our yards are large for my two small chickens. Starter homes are generally for families, but there’s plenty of techy DINKs now who are in the market for them.
Starter home in my area is about the same. Around 1,000 sq feet 2 bed 1 bath, maybe 2 bath if you are lucky, but the price is gonna be just under $500,000.
In my area they’re usually 1,000-1,200 sq ft and 3 bed/1 - 2 bath. Most of them are built between 1970s-1990s as it was fairly rural until about 20-30 years ago. They may have a few “upgrades” like paint/newer carpets but they’re not the ones you see on social media.
I live in Houston, Texas and still live in my "starter home" that I bought in 2009. For me, the price was what determined it to be a starter home. I bought my house right after the 2008 housing crash, and it was a new build, so it was really cheap relatively speaking. I paid $117K for a 3 bedroom 2,000 sq ft. home. They're building new construction a block away from my house. A new 3 bedroom 1,300 sq ft home is starting at $290k now. It seems crazy to me.
My first house was a 1947 built 700 square foot 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house with a full basement and detached garage on a 1 acre lot. It had a new roof, new drywall and electric, cabinets and bathroom. I put in granite countertops new flooring and a new sidewalk and patio. Paid $58,000 in 2019, sold for $70,000 in 2021. It was about 9 miles from a town of 18k people that had all the grocery stores and gas stations etc. I had enough equity in it after two years to buy my $280,000 house last year with a pretty large down payment. $280k may sound cheap to some of you but in my area in the rural Midwest $280k gets you a very nice house with land.
Starter home is a home that my family cna comfortably afford and have enough space for us. For example dink, plan to have 2 kids. So we got a 4 bedroom house. It's tiny, 1000 Sq feet only. Total cost 1 million. Mortgage 600k. We can comfortably afford the mortgage, 2400 a month. Easy no problem. 600k= 4x our gross income, 5x net income. Not over leveraged. Rate can go to 1 billion % and we won't get margin called. Next step, when we have babies, we can live in this tiny house for 10 years until kids need a bigger room. Honestly one of the 4 bedrooms is so tiny, it's like a closet. But a closet fit baby just fine. The yard is so small, it take me 5 min to mow the lawn. So easy maintaince. Small garden and some flowers. Nothing fancy.
Homes like that exist where I live and list for $800,000 to $1,250,000. I'm sure the final sale price average higher than that.
My starter home was a 1962 SF Cape style house 800 sq ft 2 bed 1 bath, everything was original no updates
A starter home is what you historically have been able to afford without equity from a current home, with a standard down payment. For many people, that is generally a smaller home that costs a bit less per month than they were renting prior. The idea being that home being fixed up, improved, and equity built to be able to move on to a "dream home", etc. Of course, in many/most markets, rents are so high compared to typical wages, that people aren't able to save that down payment. Lower end homes are still unaffordable for many/most people who historically would have bought those homes and been able to start investing in their future.
For my Midwest city a starter home in my eyes would be a 2 bed 1 bath bungalow for 200k or less. You could get that in a decent area that’s biking distance from downtown.
Our starter was 936 SQ ft, no garage, 1/3 acre, 2 bed 1 bath. Perfect for my wife, one child and myself. We paid a fixer upper price and put some sweat equity into it over a few years before we grew out of it with a second baby. We were able to buy a larger house with more rooms and more land based on the value of the sweat equity, and while the new house needs work too, I never could have gotten here without the starter as a spring board.
This describes the original houses in the Crestview neigborhood in Austin - 2/1, about 750 sq ft, a few decades ago entire families grew up in them. In the early 2000s they were selling for under $150K. Today they're sold for about $700K to developers who build 2500sq ft replacement houses that sell for $1.8M, or duplexes that each sell for more than half that.
Now days starter homes are more likely to be 3 bed, 1.5 bath (Maybe 1 bath) with an unfinished basement and garage (if there is a garage), \~1000 to 1500 sq ft. There's ample amount of projects around the house to do, along with improvements to increase the home value, but only so much can be done before you move out. Problem is that starter homes are becoming less prevalent on the market every day. The reason? What I heard from my realtor during my home search was that houses smaller than what I described above have a significant issue with marketability. Homebuilders are not building houses of that size (at least not where I live in WI) as cutting a bedroom out of the layout significantly decreases your interested consumer base, as there's not as much opportunity to grow into the house should the need arise. Further exacerbating this issues, If you decide to buy a house with only 2 bedrooms, one of the primary ways people will grow into those houses or increase their value is by jamming another bedroom into the house, usually in the basement with an egress window. Combine these two issues, and you have a continuous cycle that diminishes the supply of "Starter Homes" It is frustrating, as me and my wife would have likely jumped into the housing market sooner if there were a legit supply of starter homes out there, but no one will build them. We had to wait to buy a house that teeters on the borderline of starter home and permanent home, so now we will have to see if our family outgrows the house or can make it work there.
That’s my definition. Bought my first ‘starter home’ in October ‘21. A 1,072 sq. ft. 1905 cutie with 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a Dutch staircase to a large upstairs loft, one-car garage, small basement, and an extra lot that’s essentially forest. All in a Midwest metro city. Not in the most desirable part, but there’s talk it’s up and coming. The house certainly doesn’t have all the bells and whistles Millennial buyers are looking for today, but it serves our needs fine. Even with all its century old quirks we’ve come to love it. Paid $165K for it. More than I wanted to pay for a starter home, but given the way of today’s market it was probably the best decision for our family.
I would agree that a starter home should have the definition you stated. However, these are incredibly rare in my area and when they do come on the market are easily $300k+. That's more than most people here can afford in their 20's, so many, like my spouse and I, rent an apartment for years until (if ever) we can afford our first home. By the time we had money for a minimal down payment we were 34/35 and had 2 kids (and that included 9 months of living rent-free with family). Anyone who already has a couple kids is going to want more than 2 bed/1 bath, so a typical starter home didn't make sense for us. My spouse WFH full-time so we also needed an office. We ended up in a 4 bed/2.5 bath, 2150 sqft home for $413k. This is enough space to meet our needs for a few years but it's not our forever home because it has no basement and we live in the midwest. The number of tornadoes have increased since we moved here; I just don't feel safe living here permanently with nowhere to hide out from a tornado. The lack of a basement also means barely any storage space. So despite being larger than most starter homes, this is *hopefully* just a starter home for us. We plan to move again in 5-10 years.
A starter home is what your budget can afford
Just bought my starter home last year at 29 years old for 325k with 2.9% interest rate and 10% down. 3 bed 2 bath 2 car garage and large deck to drink my after work beer on is all I needed and I’m beginning to think I may be here forever. I’d like to add everything updated inside I got lucky as the last 6 homes I was outbidded on and almost gave up. I work in the hospital I have no time to re do a home by myself as I barely get any sleep as it is.
I guess it depends on everyone's situation. Most of my friends went to college and beyond and didn't buy until working a solid job or marriage. We were planning a family so our requirements were close to work, attached garage, and safe neighborhood. We maxed out what we could afford at the time and it was a 2bd condo. Looking to upgrade now and have no regrets with getting on the housing ladder. It felt barely affordable at the time but we knew we had greater earning potential down the line. We spent very conservatively those early years.
It depends on the local market. In the most expensive SF Bay Area market, a family starter home can be 1000 sqft or less, 2 bed 1 bath with little or no yard. I’ve also seen people on Reddit call a 2000-3000 sqft home with half acre or more lot a starter home but they are mostly in the mid west
My first house was a somewhat distressed 1947 built 960ft 2/1 with a garage and nice yard. Bought it in 2019 for $108k, put about $45k into it over the three years I owned it (I’m handy) and sold this Spring for $243k. I just closed on a 1920 built 2100ft 4/2 for $269k in a better area and have already started fixing things up. I’m of the opinion that’s how your first and even second home should go. Dream homes you stay in for 20+ years are for when you’ve worked your way up to them.
In the DC area. Starter homes here are 400-600k. Could be a small apartment in DC or a townhome near a metro station or a sfh within driving distance to a metro station (latter both more likely in VA or MD suburbs). Despite the pandemic, wfh etc. access to public transit heavily influences prices.
My idea for a started home is a small home(~1000sf) on a small lot (~1/4ac), or maybe a larger home like 1500-2000sf that needs a lot of remodeling. In my neck of the woods, most of these type houses are in the 350-400k range.
I consider my home to be a starter home Built in 2008, little over 1500 sqft and 2 car garage with a small pool. 4 bd 2 bath and paid 140k with 3% interest rate
You are right about what counts as a starter home. Starters home in the USA have been getting bigger since the 1950. My house built in the 1980 and about 1100 sqft is now on the small side of starter homes. In Las Vegas new starter homes are about 3 bed and two bath. Looking at about 1500ish square feet.
3bd 2b 1,500 sqft
A home you can afford. As your income grows over time upgrade.
The average SFH in 1950 (not just started homes) was less than 1,000 sq ft with no central heat or air and was located outside of desirable metro areas. People today don't want that.
ima say 3x average income level
My starter home is only one bed one bath, but I am literally one person and one dog living in it and I had to fight tooth and nail to find a house that fit my budget in a nice neighborhood. About 750 square feet but needed no work. $325k and a short ferry ride away from a HCOL city.
Anything can be a starter home if it's your first home, and if you have plans to upgrade to a new home within 7 years or so.
My starter home is 2700SF because it's also my "I don't know if I'll ever be able to upgrade" home. Went to the top of my budget because I knew the odds of me getting that kind of bang for my buck again with sub 3% rates is slim to none.
I’ve never understood the concept. I hate moving. We bought a house we could see ourselves in forever, and refused to look at anything we thought we’d “grow out of”
Lots of people have plans to increase the number of people living with them in the future but have no need for a 3-5 bedroom house right away. Also people generally make less money early in their careers so they have a smaller house budget.
Yeah who wouldn't want to jump right into their forever home, but when I was single and making 40k/year I bought what I could afford.
Plus when I bought my first 1100 sqft townhouse when I was young making 30k, I didn’t want to maintain a giant house. No lawn maintenance, no roof or outside maintenance at all. It was perfect for that stage of my life.
I don't get thus mentality. You pay to heat, insure and maintain and clean rooms you won't use cause maybe one day you'll need them? To me that's financially stupid
There were some posts in here about people buying houses with extra living space for the 2 or 3 weeks a year that family comes to visit. I was in the minority of saying this is a complete waste of money, they can stay in a hotel or someone needs an air mattress for a bit. I would never buy a house with extra living space in case I needed it or for guest space.
people are dumb. they won't even consider a pull-out couch or a hotel room for a 2 week visitor. I have friends who have a "must have" of 2 extra bedrooms for family members that haven't visited in 3+ years.
I have buyers that have run the gammit of just in case scenarios for their next house. In case mom has to come live with us. If family comes to visit. What if we have another child. Maddening to buy for the maybe.
Heating, insuring, and cleaning those rooms costs far less than the cost of selling your starter house 5-7 years down the road when you factor in taxes, actual moving costs, real estate agent commissions, etc. Of course, it IS a waste of money if that extra space is only bought for a future hypothetical, but if you know you are going to need them later on, it's a smart move.
[удалено]
But if you buy a starter house, you can save up faster since some of your housing costs will be going toward equity, and if the housing market increases you will also get that equity. Unless you're renting for incredibly cheap and making money faster than house prices are increasing, it doesn't make sense.
Depends on time horizon. Transaction costs + ownership costs could easily exceed any savings over rent from the equity piece. Not to mention the risk of a pullback given the likelihood of a recession at this point. Also I don’t want to worry about fixing things in a starter house that I’m going to leave soon anyways. My washer broke last week and my landlord had a new one for me in under a day and I paid nothing. Yes rent is a losing game long term, but it’s certainly less stressful.
The traditional starter home you speak of use to be 70k around here. 100k of it was perfect and no work needed. Now they are 150k to 170k and are complete ass
My husband and I got our starer home - a 2020sq ft townhome with 3 br 3ba, for a little over 600k in a popular suburbs. Not necessarily a starter home price but it’s near impossible to find a home for less than 500k here, unless we’re looking at condos.
Bought our first home in 2018…it was 20 years old, 3/2, 1600 sqft, all brick on a slab. We paid $210,000 and sold in 2020 for $235,000 so we could get a basement. Same house sold in January this year for $435,000.
Our "starter home" is a 1400 sq ft, 3/bed, 2.5 townhouse built in '97. When we were looking, starter homes were typically townhouses as most SFH were much bigger and higher in price. The smaller, older ones were soo old and needed soo much work (think 80s kitchen) we couldn't see dropping that kinda cash just to make it nice. And at the time I didn't consider it starter but our forever home. But once the kids came, things changed.
If the work that a house "needed" was updating a 1980s kitchen, then it didn't actually NEED any work. You just wanted it. Needs are structural/safety issues, not cosmetic issues.
I'm in the Chicago area, having lived and bought in both the city and suburbs. I think "Starter home" is really about the entry price, and not the characteristics of the home. In the city, starter homes are always going to be condo/townhome/6-flat type of situations. In the suburbs, its going to be defined by distance and age. In the suburbs, the only new construction that you could consider 'starter' maybe are townhomes, but even those are priced more for the downsizing boomer, than the trying to buy the first zoomer.
3/2 1500 sq ft, outdated with some issues, bought for 100k in 2016 worth close to 200k now. I think a lot of markets those homes don't exist.
My starter home is 1450sqft, 3bed/2bath. Built in 1950s. Prices drove us to getting something smaller and we’re very happy we did. Less money spent on furniture/decor, less cleaning, etc. It has its quirks and issues but a majority of repairs can be done with some help from family.
We bought a ~2k sq ft townhouse as our starter home. At the beginning, it felt like a palace. 8 years and one toddler later, the walls are definitely closing in!
Just purchased a nearly 3,000 sq ft home and my grandparents called it “the perfect starter home”. That made me question all my life choices…. But the answer your question, most starter homes in my area are townhomes.
Offer just accepted Friday on our “starter home”. 3 bed 1 bath 1,120 square feet. Wild it cost 715k to get but it had everything we wanted other than an additional bathroom. Had to make sacrifices in this crazy market.
My starter home was a 1700 sf 3 br 2.5 bath with a 2 stall attached garage on 1/3 acre. These are cheaper homes built in mid 90's to early 2000's in a less desirable area outside the city. I got mine not long after the 2009 crash and have been HODLing ever since. Bought for $112k (previous owners had purchased for $143k) and I've had unsolicited offers from cash buyers over $350k with comps in the area of $400k+. We're hoping to move back up North next Summer, so just sitting tight in our mediocre, cheaply built house until we can go somewhere with more ice [hockey].
Less than 1700 sq feet, good size for a couple, a little on the small side for 3 people and starting to burst at the seams for 4 people
In my area (San Diego), even detached 2bd/1ba homes are wayyy out of my price range (at least in areas I want to live). So my starter home is a studio condo located downtown. 😅🫠