51–60 of 152 posts
The housing market also needs more row houses. Those have fewer of the disadvantages of condos but unfortunately they're illegal to build in most (almost all?) parts of the US.
A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class - condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. Start incentivizing treating housing as, you know, a place to live rather than a financial instrument and you'll see…
Eh, maybe I’d do a townhouse, but I’m pretty burned out on condos. They’re just apartments with a bunch of extra liabilities attached.
A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class - condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. Start incentivizing treating housing as, you know, a place to live rather than a financial instrument and you'll see…
It depends on where the condo is. My condo in Boston has increased in value 2.5 times in the 20 years I've owned it. My friend's home in a wealthy suburb of Boston increased by 40% in almost the same amount of time. That's taking into account the last two years of the pandemic where we saw housing price increases slow or stop in the city while suburban prices rose much more quickly. Before that, the difference in appreciation was even greater.
My parents condo in Manhattan, which they bought 45 years ago, has probably appreciated close to two orders of magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. This is fine. I don't buy a condo with the hope of recouping my money. I buy a condo to have a roof over my head. I couldn't care less if my condo loses 80% of its value. It would lower my property tax bill in fact. I don't expect a ROI > 0 for the furniture either. For my r…
If all you want is a roof over your head, why not rent? It's less risky. You may well find yourself caring if your condo loses 80% of its value if you need to sell it and you can't repay the loan.
The US has almost no tenant protections except for a few urban areas that passed municipal laws. I would prefer to rent if it provided almost as much protection as homeowning, and if it weren't so financially disincentivized in the US.
IMHO we need to eliminate the capital gains exemptions for homes, and also add on local capital gains taxes in addition to federal, to disincentivize real estate speculation.
No, it doesn’t. Or at least it depends on where. What the Bay Area needs is more genuine family housing, not small 2BR condos. If the condos were majority 3+ BR I’d have a different opinion. But they aren’t: it’s very hard to find good quality condo housing suitable for a 2-child family that isn’t roughly the same as or more than my 7-figure net worth in cost.
I don’t think it’s possible to get more single family homes. So the only option is condos. I agree more spacious one would be awesome as an option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all you want is a roof over your head, why not rent? It's less risky. You may well find yourself caring if your condo loses 80% of its value if you need to sell it and you can't repay the loan.
Because rent would hurt you really bad when you're pensioner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all you want is a roof over your head, why not rent? It's less risky. You may well find yourself caring if your condo loses 80% of its value if you need to sell it and you can't repay the loan.
>It's less risky. depending on your local housing market, it could be much more risky. where i live, for the last few years renting has carried the real possibility of being unable to find a place to live, for any amount of money, when your lease ends. the big upside to a condo is that nobody is going to kick you out.
If something major fails with the building, a repair bill could be so large that you have to take out another mortgage to pay for it, no matter your current financial situation.
Plenty of significant problems with condos that can force you to be kicked out.
Most of all, incentives are misaligned. Condos are designed to be marketed and sold. I’ve lived in several high end condos, as well as high end apartment buildings, and the apartment buildings always were built better and didn’t have weird custom made shit breaking.
No, it doesn’t. Or at least it depends on where. What the Bay Area needs is more genuine family housing, not small 2BR condos. If the condos were majority 3+ BR I’d have a different opinion. But they aren’t: it’s very hard to find good quality condo housing suitable for a 2-child family that isn’t roughly the same as or more than my 7-figure net worth in cost.
Presumably, if there was less exclusive single-family-home zoning, there’d be more incentive for family-suitable condos to be built.
A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class - condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. Start incentivizing treating housing as, you know, a place to live rather than a financial instrument and you'll see…