Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 440 posts

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#91

Post by fatnoah »

alistairSH wrote: post #85
alkonaut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why you'd want to build an enormous house for your retirement ? If anything, I long for the day my kids leave and I can move to a "simpler" place where I don't need to worry about, or pay for, maintainnig a detatched house. What does a rich older couple do in 7500sq ft/700sq m? I'd run out of ideas for rooms after about 200 sq m, and then I'm left to clean the remaining 500 sq m. anyway...

Right there with you. We sold our 1800sqft single-family for a 1500sqft townhome shortly after the kid flew the nest. And we still have two bedrooms that are seldom used (one is a guest room, used 3-4x/year, the other is an office used never, except by the dog).

My wife and I have a 2k square foot, 3 bedroom house, along with a kid (11 years) and a dog. (We recently moved there from the city) We're trying to figure out what we're going to do with all that space when kiddo is gone. Even though that's a way off, the likely plan is to downsize to a 2 bed in the city.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#92

Post by leetcrew »

alkonaut wrote: post #28
pjc50 wrote: post #5

This is not only "first world problems", but 1% first world problems. Well, maybe 5%: given > For their retirement in a suburb of Asheville, N.C., Ben and Valentina Bethell spent about $3.5 million in 2009 to build their dream home: a roughly 7,500-square-foot, European-style house with a commanding view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Put $3.5m into https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta... and yo…

I don't get why you'd want to build an enormous house for your retirement ? If anything, I long for the day my kids leave and I can move to a "simpler" place where I don't need to worry about, or pay for, maintainnig a detatched house. What does a rich older couple do in 7500sq ft/700sq m? I'd run out of ideas for rooms after about 200 sq m, and then I'm left to clean the remaining 500 sq m. anyway...

I'm not saying it's reasonable, but I think these people are designing their house for peak capacity, not average. people with these kinds of houses might fly their entire extended family out for holidays (or several of their friend's families). they don't necessarily care that the place is empty most of the year; it's probably not their only house anyway.

obviously they hire people to maintain the place.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#93

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

One of the trends that I can only hope continues is getting rid of this idea that home ownership (especially single family home ownership) is the American dream.

I live in and own a detached single family home (was a compromise with my spouse) and to be honest, I hate it. I hate having to take care of the yard, to deal with unreliable tradespeople when things break, to deal with the huge expense of minor home repairs - and this is even after outsourcing as much of that work as possible.

Compare that to renting an apartment, which I loved. If something broke, I just called the super, and that was that. This ridiculous idea that renting is "throwing money away" is absurd. I'm paying someone to deal with all the shit I absolutely don't want to deal with, and more importantly I'm paying for the freedom to easily up and move if something else fits my fancy.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#94

Post by Anon84 »

mordechai9000 wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #5

This is not only "first world problems", but 1% first world problems. Well, maybe 5%: given > For their retirement in a suburb of Asheville, N.C., Ben and Valentina Bethell spent about $3.5 million in 2009 to build their dream home: a roughly 7,500-square-foot, European-style house with a commanding view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Put $3.5m into https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta... and yo…

> They are unlikely to have mortgaged it, as most lenders won't lend past retirement for obvious reasons You can't deny a loan due to age in the U.S. It's specifically forbidden by federal law.

No need to deny it. Just make the terms and conditions unreasonable.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#95

Post by jtbayly »

mordechai9000 wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #5

This is not only "first world problems", but 1% first world problems. Well, maybe 5%: given > For their retirement in a suburb of Asheville, N.C., Ben and Valentina Bethell spent about $3.5 million in 2009 to build their dream home: a roughly 7,500-square-foot, European-style house with a commanding view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Put $3.5m into https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta... and yo…

> They are unlikely to have mortgaged it, as most lenders won't lend past retirement for obvious reasons You can't deny a loan due to age in the U.S. It's specifically forbidden by federal law.

Yes, but you can deny a loan for not having steady source of income. That's what retirement usually means. It refers to whether you are working, not how old you are.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#96

Post by smcl »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #49
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to be careful when dismissing caution about the elderly who have - through whatever means - found themselves living in a valuable property. The following are just as likely: - a wealthy individual with many properties who can easily afford a few extra hundred quid a month - someone living just above poverty level in a property in a previously modest area that, thanks to a gentrification, has exploded in valu…

I think if someone is in a huge house they're barely using and possibly not even maintaining, there isn't a massive issue with gently incentivising them to move somewhere smaller. There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. You have to balance your caution with the reality at th…

If it’s a case of seizing unused or poorly maintained mansions from the super-rich and turning them into Council houses then I am on board. But to me it sounded like we were talking about old people living alone in 3-bedroom houses they used to stay with their families

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#97

Post by pbuzbee »

This article claims that these homes are going because buyer preferences have shifted towards smaller homes in walkable areas. I don't disagree with this, but I'm surprised the article didn't factor in the cost of these homes.

These homes are priced in the millions and are generally not in areas known for high salaries. Coming up with that much money is out of reach for most members of younger generations. Some people may be interested in buying these gargantuan homes, but they can't afford it.

And as the article states, the generation that can most afford these homes, boomers, is losing interest in these homes because they are coming to terms with how impractical they are as they age.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#98

Post by maxsilver »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #93

One of the trends that I can only hope continues is getting rid of this idea that home ownership (especially single family home ownership) is the American dream. I live in and own a detached single family home (was a compromise with my spouse) and to be honest, I hate it. I hate having to take care of the yard, to deal with unreliable tradespeople when things break, to deal with the huge expense of minor home repairs…

I also hate maintaining a detached single family home with a yard. I also hate being responsible for the fixes. But that situation is still far better than renting.

When we rented, we were subjected to eviction at any time, for nearly any reason, for basically no notice (60 days, which in the US is effectively zero notice). Your subjected to every whim the crazy wildly-irrational housing market throws at you (we've had 12% yearly rental increases for a decade straight now, despite living in bumblefudge-nowhere Midwest).

Renting in the US today is capital-e Evil, and just wholly broken. Unless we're ready to implement some guaranteed nationwide rent controls and guarantees against unjust eviction and harassment, making housing ownership possible for all citizens has to be the number 1 goal. Because home/condo ownership is the only way to gain any sort of housing security in most of the USA today.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#99

Post by wbl »

masklinn wrote: post #20
mruts wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, not really. I knew plenty of people buying new mcmansions on credit when their household income wasn’t above 80k. Many many Americans over leveraged themselves by buying up huge properties with no down payment.

> McMansion is a pejorative term for a large "mass-produced" dwelling The subjects of the article: > Ben and Valentina Bethell spent about $3.5 million in 2009 to build their dream home: a roughly 7,500-square-foot, European-style house with a commanding view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. > Robin and David Saltman moved from New Jersey to Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., where they spent more than a year custom-building their…

The McMansion isn't mass produced just ugly.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#100

Post by sct202 »

pbuzbee wrote: post #97

This article claims that these homes are going because buyer preferences have shifted towards smaller homes in walkable areas. I don't disagree with this, but I'm surprised the article didn't factor in the cost of these homes. These homes are priced in the millions and are generally not in areas known for high salaries. Coming up with that much money is out of reach for most members of younger generations. Some peopl…

Yeah I live in a 2 bed room condo because it's cheap. I would prefer to live in a house and could afford it, but the ones in my area are pricey with fairly high property taxes (2-3%). Mortgage rates are 4-5%, so that all adds up with maintenance and insurance. It would just be a really big commitment to take on those costs just to gain a yard and few extra rooms.
Post reply on HN