Second one, hands down. We have just about that setup right now, and there's no way I'd want to clean/maintain something bigger. But we're not breeders, so that might make a difference. We did have a third adult living here this summer, and we didn't feel cramped at all.
Space, space, space. Of course, I have 3 kids so there is no way I would want to share one bathroom with them. We are in an 1100 sq. ft. apartment (3bed/2bath) and I can't wait to have more space. I could upgrade the space but I can't make it bigger. Well, at least not easily.
I'd take the extra space. You can always pretty things up in one way or another, but you can't add space when there is none. Plus all those "upgrades" in the smaller house will most likely end up feeling dated at some point.
Post by littlemisssunshine on Nov 19, 2012 20:41:18 GMT -5
I'd pick the space. And I say that a married person with no kids that lives in a 3000 square foot house. Is there a third option? Look for a bigger house that matches your tastes in upgrades?
First with no doubts. It's livable, you can do the upgrades the way that you want and make sure they are done correctly, and you won't be on top of your family members at all times. And speaking from someone that grew up in a 1 bath home, it SUCKS when the entire family has a stomach bug and your brother if puking in the tub while your doing the do on the pot.
Upgrades. I live in a small home and am trying to make it home#2. I'm so sick of home projects. I told h if we ever move I want move in ready. Nothing to change but paint.
The space, hands down. There is no possible way we could do 1200 with only one garage, with our family of 4. ETA: if my husband wasn't a business owner (and have several vehicles + need for office and storage) we could probably do the smaller upgraded.
I'm surprising myself here, but I think I might take the first one with the space. Assuming the updates are pretty much cosmetic and it had a great layout I would be okay with upgrading over time.
Our home isn't much bigger than the second option, and it's more than fine for us, but sometimes I have dreams of things like a first floor powder room, walk-in closets and a dishwasher...and just not having to keep things perfectly organized all the time.
We basically made that same decision and went with the tiny one but well finished. It took some getting used to, but I'm loving it. We had a huge house before (in the 2400 range) and it was such a pain to keep clean, heat, cool, etc. The only thing I miss is being able to host guests easily.
The 1200 sq/ft house. I don't want anything much bigger than that anyway, regardless of upgrades. It's more than double our current space (almost triple!) and we only plan to have one kid, if that.
Post by bunnymendelbaum on Nov 20, 2012 7:24:54 GMT -5
Small one. 1,200sf w 2 kids would be tight, but if it is all my taste and great layout like you said it would work.
I almost said the big one, but the bad layout would do me in. Even if we could slowly upgrade finishes it would still suck. Plus, 2,800sf is too big for me.
Post by lightbulbsun on Nov 20, 2012 8:21:04 GMT -5
The second one. Mostly because I hate how big our current house is (1700sf), and I'd like to downgrade. I don't think I could handle something 1100sf larger!
Number one is pretty much the house we bought. Plenty of room for a family but lots of cosmetic things that make me nuts. We knew we'd probably start a family in a few years and wanted something that would be big enough long term. The price difference on smaller houses and townhouses in our area isn't enough to make up for the future cost of selling.
It's the right choice for us now, but if we were older and our kids were starting to go off to college I'd go with the smaller house. Two people in a large house is annoying - too much to clean!
Space. Upgrades can be done affordably over time, but adding on square footage is a huge expense, i.e., probably means a 2nd mortgage which I would not want to do.
The only way I would choose option two is if DH had the skills to do room additions himself and we wouldn't have the labor expenses, just the materials.
Post by chanteltbarrett on Nov 20, 2012 9:36:35 GMT -5
I would definitely choose the second one. I am heavily influenced by my surroundings, and I wouldn't be able to live somewhere that I didn't like aesthetically, knowing that it might take a long time to change it. Plus, with the second one, there would be less cleaning and upkeep, in general.
Space. I'm a simple girl really. I don't get overly excited about the must have upgrades. Granite countertops and hardwood floors won't do me much good if I don't have the space for anyone to sit or work in my 2x3 kitchen. As long as it's liveable I can always fix the dated stuff so it's pretty.
I think even if I could guarantee a sale and profit on the smaller home, I would still go for the larger home. I really hate moving, so a home that we could stay in long-term would be ideal even if it needed upgrades.
The single bath and 1-car garage in #2 are killers for me.
It seems like house 1 might be a better investment, you have lots of ways to increase the value there. It sounds like everything has already been done on house 2, so the only way the value is going up is if the real estate market changes.
Plus, if you do cosmetic updates to house 1, you can pick out everything yourself so it is exactly what you want instead of the upgrades someone else picked out in house 2.
This is coming from someone who currently lives in a 4200 house with no kids. So, 2800 sq ft doesn't even seem big to me. :-)