Another non-cliky poll on houses

[minniebee]

Okay, I know I already posted about 4 house choices the other day ... but I have a new comparison for feedback. Only 2 houses this time.

Both houses are within our price range. They are in the same area, so general location, schools, and commute to H's job are the same. Both built in 2007. Both have very motivated sellers, so we could probably get either house for less than asking price.

House 1: $344,000. This one was one of the houses I listed in my earlier post.

5br/4.5ba, 4600 sq ft, .21 acre lot, 5-level split

Pros: More sq ft for the price. Warm & homey feel. We like all the finishes and wouldn't need to change anything, but it has fewer upgrades than house 2. Feels a lot like our current home, which we like. We wouldn't even need to paint, we like the colors in the house. Landscaping is awesome. Beautiful stamped-concerete patio and maintenance-free composite deck. Has a wet bar in the lower level rec room - good for entertaining.

Cons: More sq ft than we really need. Lot is smaller so the houses are pretty close together, not much privacy. Neighbors surround the house on 3 sides. No irrigation system. Only has 2-car garage, and no space to add a 3rd stall. Priced on the high end for the neighborhood (most homes in the area priced between $250,000-300,000). It's still worth the money, since the lower-priced homes have less finished sq ft and less upgrades. However, if we ever wanted to make any updates or upgrades in the future, we probably wouldn't get our money back since we'd be over-improving for the neighborhood.

House 2: $400,000.

4br/4.5ba, 3700 sq ft, .44 acre lot, 2-story

Pros: Less finished sq ft, a more reasonable size for us. More upgrades and high-end finishes than house 1, especially in flooring, the kitchen, and the master bath where upgrades count the most. True 1st-floor master suite. Bigger lot means houses aren't so close together and there's more privacy. Wooded area on one side of the lot, so there are only neighbors on 2 sides. Has an irrigation system. Has a 3-car garage. Basement is totally unfinished, so there's plenty of storage. It's one of the cheaper homes in the area, it's in a neighborhood where many homes have sold for $450,000+. If we ever decided to put money into the house, we would actually increase the value since the neighborhood would support a higher price.

Cons: Costs more - PITI would be $250-300/month more than house 1. Don't love the paint colors. It's not horrible and nothing would have to be painted immediately, but the entire house is the same bland light beige color. No wet bar. Landscaping & patio isn't as nice as house 1, it's okay, not just not at the same level.

So ....

If you were buying one of these houses, which one would you buy?

[emisi]

Honestly, I'm not even sure I'd consider house 1. A 5 level split? Ugh. Too many stairs for me. I'd go for the second and paint it. Plus, any renovations you do would add more value. More bang for the buck.

[knitty]

Aren't there any other choices? Number one is far too big, unless you have seven kids, but number two is so much more expensive, and has five toilets to clean. Are there any $300,000 2500 sf houses around?

[pickle123]

I need pics in order to decide.

[Deleted]

House 1 wouldn't even be an option. I would never want a house with more than one set of stairs. 2 max. 5 levels..that's constant exercise just to go to the bathroom and put the laundry away. And I don't if you have kids or ever plan on it, but that'd be a giant PITA. Also, you couldn't pay me to live anywhere where I hated the lot. Yard space is a non-negotiable for me.

Also, if house 2 has the better finishes, I'd go that route. Paint is always cheap while upgrading fixtures/trim etc. never is.

[minniebee]

Nov 3, 2012 18:32:38 GMT -5 knitty said:

Aren't there any other choices? Number one is far too big, unless you have seven kids, but number two is so much more expensive, and has five toilets to clean. Are there any $300,000 2500 sf houses around?

They both have 5 toilets to clean :-)

Sure, there might be 2500 sq ft houses for $300,000 somewhere ... but not currently available in the specific area where we want to live. We have our location narrowed down pretty well, it's perfect because it's super convenient to every place we'll need to go on a regular basis. Location is our top priority, that's something we can't change later on.

And, honestly, 2500 sq ft seems small. I know, I know. Many will argue otherwise, but we currently have a 4200 sq ft house. We are willing to downsize, but we aren't really interested in anything less than 3000 sq ft.

[SusanBAnthony]

Number two for sure.

I hate split levels, I hate small lots, and everything sounds better about two.

[pickle123]

Nevermind...I didn't read the part about split level. Definitely a no. #2 for sure.

[tarheels]

2

[pitterwoo]

I'm for #2 as well.

[jhawks482]

I can't even imagine a 5 level home. #2 would be my pick.

[sunny2012]

#2 for sure

[my4girls]

I'm sitting here in my parents 5 level split that I grew up in and it's certainly not something that would deter me from buying a house. Not sure how yours is set up though but the top two floors here are both single bedrooms so the only person who goes up there are my brothers whose bedrooms they are. I honestly never thought the steps were too much. I'd probably pick 2 based on other things but the 5 level wouldn't be a big deal at all

[auntie]

Two.

Deal breakers for #1 include-

A 4600 sq ft house on less than a 1/4 acre? That's gotta be asthetically unappealing. In my neighborhood, townhouses have quarter acre lots. I can't imagine enjoying a deck in such cramped quarters.

Having the highest priced home in any community is a poor investment. It might be a sensible choice if you needed the bedrooms, but otherwise it's not a good plan.

The notion of choosing a house based on paint colors escapes me. It's sort of like turning down a great guy because you don't like the color of the shirt he's wearing.

[Deleted]

I agree with most of the replies that #2 is the better choice. My husband says "you can add on to a house but you can't get more land." For that reason I would want the larger lot.

[gnomesweetgnome]

Just from the details you've posted here I would have to go with house #2. The irrigation, 3-car garage, upgrades, and 2-story would all be huge plusses over the other house, IMO.