Thanks, Phil.Mutantsteak wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
location location location
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
ah... I've lived in Prince William County 100K ain't gonna get ya that nice of a house. Also the commute time was more like 3 hours, not 45 minutes -But that was over a decade ago, I'm sure things have gotten much better since then.... Good luck.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I'm just browsing around on the Washington Post's real estate listings, and for the prices of those houses I listed in the OP, I'm finding newly built homes for the same price that have like 5 bedrooms and lots of space.Turquoise wrote:
Arlington has some nice townhouses, but yeah, they're expensive.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I'm telling my dad that it'd make more sense for him to buy a smaller house in the suburbs since they're generally much cheaper than the nice urban ones, but he "doesn't want to commute." Honestly I wouldn't mind a 45 minute commute if it meant having a pretty nice house for much cheaper than I'd get in the city.
@DBBrinson, "DC area" a small house in the suburbs, the size of the ones I've seen in the city are much less expensive than the ones in the city.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
As others have said, it's all about location. I could have gotten twice the house for two thirds the money but I would constantly have worried about theft and vandalism. And this is within a small, 25k resident, city.
yeah... good luck getting anything but a very tiny condo,maybe.... in Prince William county... for 100k...lot's of civil war history thoughDBBrinson1 wrote:
ah... I've lived in Prince William County 100K ain't gonna get ya that nice of a house. Also the commute time was more like 3 hours, not 45 minutes -But that was over a decade ago, I'm sure things have gotten much better since then.... Good luck.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I'm just browsing around on the Washington Post's real estate listings, and for the prices of those houses I listed in the OP, I'm finding newly built homes for the same price that have like 5 bedrooms and lots of space.Turquoise wrote:
Arlington has some nice townhouses, but yeah, they're expensive.
@DBBrinson, "DC area" a small house in the suburbs, the size of the ones I've seen in the city are much less expensive than the ones in the city.
and Prince William was just voted longest commute in the US... 46 minutes
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.a … ;catid=158
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-02-03 18:10:10)
Love is the answer
That isnt adjusting for traffic, which I think it was Brinson was talking about.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
yeah... good luck getting anything but a very tiny condo,maybe.... in Prince William county... for 100k...lot's of civil war history thoughDBBrinson1 wrote:
ah... I've lived in Prince William County 100K ain't gonna get ya that nice of a house. Also the commute time was more like 3 hours, not 45 minutes -But that was over a decade ago, I'm sure things have gotten much better since then.... Good luck.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I'm just browsing around on the Washington Post's real estate listings, and for the prices of those houses I listed in the OP, I'm finding newly built homes for the same price that have like 5 bedrooms and lots of space.
@DBBrinson, "DC area" a small house in the suburbs, the size of the ones I've seen in the city are much less expensive than the ones in the city.
and Prince William was just voted longest commute in the US... 46 minutes
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.a … ;catid=158
Buyers are liars and sellers are yellers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
A cheap, 2-3 bedroom 2 story house where I live costs about $600,000.
Because homes are an investment, and a big one at that. You put your money into buying it, and not only that, upgrading it, making it nicer, etc.Sydney wrote:
I dunno, they just doHurricane2k9 wrote:
@Sydney but why do houses appreciate in value over time? I've never understood that.
There are people who make a living simply by buying homes, fixing them up, then selling them for a better price.
You've got it the wrong way round - homes are investments because they increase in value - the reason they increase in value is, as I've already pointed out, demand and supply.mtb0minime wrote:
Because homes are an investment, and a big one at that. You put your money into buying it, and not only that, upgrading it, making it nicer, etc.Sydney wrote:
I dunno, they just doHurricane2k9 wrote:
@Sydney but why do houses appreciate in value over time? I've never understood that.
There are people who make a living simply by buying homes, fixing them up, then selling them for a better price.
Oh i know... I live in Fairfax county and it's right next to Prince William county... 46 minutes from Prince William to DC during rush hour or most any time... is extremely optimistic....lolCommie Killer wrote:
That isnt adjusting for traffic, which I think it was Brinson was talking about.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
yeah... good luck getting anything but a very tiny condo,maybe.... in Prince William county... for 100k...lot's of civil war history thoughDBBrinson1 wrote:
ah... I've lived in Prince William County 100K ain't gonna get ya that nice of a house. Also the commute time was more like 3 hours, not 45 minutes -But that was over a decade ago, I'm sure things have gotten much better since then.... Good luck.
and Prince William was just voted longest commute in the US... 46 minutes
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.a … ;catid=158
Love is the answer
1 reason is inflation. Another is the exponentially expanding population, making the houses in desirable areas (ie water front/near amenities etc) highly sort after pushing the prices up. Another reason is low interest rates.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
@Sydney but why do houses appreciate in value over time? I've never understood that.
Relocation RelocationCheez wrote:
Thanks, Phil.Mutantsteak wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
location location location
Well, you're presenting conditional evidence to refute a general sentiment. Depreciation has to be relative to something, and for most people, depreciation is relative to their mortgage. For most people, in this regard, their houses have depreciated in value.Kmarion wrote:
That's actually a fairly accurate statement. People that have been in there homes over 10 years usually aren't losing money.. even in this market.mikkel wrote:
Sydney wrote:
Houses don't (usually) depreciate in value
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-05 05:18:36)
Yes, I am presenting current market conditions. Most current homeowners bought before the boom. It is only logical to use the majority as what it is "relative". If you are representing yourself as the general sentiment then the general sentiment is wrong.mikkel wrote:
Well, you're presenting conditional evidence to refute a general sentiment. Depreciation has to be relative to something, and for most people, depreciation is relative to their mortgage. For most people, in this regard, their houses have depreciated in value.Kmarion wrote:
That's actually a fairly accurate statement. People that have been in there homes over 10 years usually aren't losing money.. even in this market.mikkel wrote:
Xbone Stormsurgezz
By recognising that there is, in fact, a boom, aren't you then recognising that houses do indeed both appreciate and depreciate in value?Kmarion wrote:
Yes, I am presenting current market conditions. Most current homeowners bought before the boom. It is only logical to use the majority as what it is "relative". If you are representing yourself as the general sentiment then the general sentiment is wrong.mikkel wrote:
Well, you're presenting conditional evidence to refute a general sentiment. Depreciation has to be relative to something, and for most people, depreciation is relative to their mortgage. For most people, in this regard, their houses have depreciated in value.Kmarion wrote:
That's actually a fairly accurate statement. People that have been in there homes over 10 years usually aren't losing money.. even in this market.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-05 13:55:01)
Of course they can depreciate in the short term.. However, as I said, for the most part anyone with any decent amount of time in their house has suffered from massive depreciation.mikkel wrote:
By recognising that there is, in fact, a boom, aren't you then recognising that houses do indeed both appreciate and depreciate in value?Kmarion wrote:
Yes, I am presenting current market conditions. Most current homeowners bought before the boom. It is only logical to use the majority as what it is "relative". If you are representing yourself as the general sentiment then the general sentiment is wrong.mikkel wrote:
Well, you're presenting conditional evidence to refute a general sentiment. Depreciation has to be relative to something, and for most people, depreciation is relative to their mortgage. For most people, in this regard, their houses have depreciated in value.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well it depends where you get your house the area? I know some houses in my area which are not that big but cost a lot since its a good area..... however you can get a house thats probably bigger in some other area thats not so wealthy. So its all about where u live.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Seriously. My father's been house-shopping (idk if he wants to buy or rent though) and we've seen some ridiculous prices for houses.
A 3 story house with poor bathroom locations (one in the god damn pantry) that's gonna have a big construction project start behind it soon? 1.2 million dollars.
A similar house but with a better layout? 1 million dollars.
A penthouse apartment with two floors, three bedrooms, a small kitchen, an entertainment room, and a nice view of the city? 1.2 million dollars
A condo with two floors and once again semi-awkward layout? 1 million dollars.
It's completely ridiculous. The only possible justification would be location, but I don't see how being a 2 minute walk to the metro makes an apartment worth 1.2 million bucks. I'm honestly a bit scared about leaving home and becoming an adult and all this shit. How are people who don't make tons of money supposed to afford these expensive fucking things? And remember, these are just average living homes. A big suburban semi-mansion goes for at least 2.5 million here.
Whether or not you suffer from significant appreciation or depreciation depends on when you sell your house. If you bought 10 years ago in a period of market inflation, and you were to sell now, your house would've depreciated in value relative to your personal investment in it. You'd have to wait for an inflated market again to break even or sell at a profit. That is if you had a choice in the matter of when to sell, which many people don't.Kmarion wrote:
Of course they can depreciate in the short term.. However, as I said, for the most part anyone with any decent amount of time in their house has suffered from massive depreciation.mikkel wrote:
By recognising that there is, in fact, a boom, aren't you then recognising that houses do indeed both appreciate and depreciate in value?Kmarion wrote:
Yes, I am presenting current market conditions. Most current homeowners bought before the boom. It is only logical to use the majority as what it is "relative". If you are representing yourself as the general sentiment then the general sentiment is wrong.
Houses are only worth what people will pay for them, and when that amount varies, the value of your home varies. Both positively and negatively.
What matters in the end is what you paid initially and what you ended up selling for. Sure you may suffer depreciation in the short term, but if over the entire term of your ownership your home has gained value then your house has appreciated. If there is a slump in the middle but you still end up on top and making more than what you put into it (and also living rent free in the mean time) it called an appreciation. It is the big picture that is too often ignored by the media and people like you.mikkel wrote:
Whether or not you suffer from significant appreciation or depreciation depends on when you sell your house. If you bought 10 years ago in a period of market inflation, and you were to sell now, your house would've depreciated in value relative to your personal investment in it. You'd have to wait for an inflated market again to break even or sell at a profit. That is if you had a choice in the matter of when to sell, which many people don't.Kmarion wrote:
Of course they can depreciate in the short term.. However, as I said, for the most part anyone with any decent amount of time in their house has suffered from massive depreciation.mikkel wrote:
By recognising that there is, in fact, a boom, aren't you then recognising that houses do indeed both appreciate and depreciate in value?
Houses are only worth what people will pay for them, and when that amount varies, the value of your home varies. Both positively and negatively.
I am fully aware of what a homes value is worth and how market condition affect value. It is in fact what I do for a living seven days a week. I'm selling a friends house now who bought in '02. The thought that he might only make 15k on the sale is horrifying to him... even though his home has appreciated, making him money. People need to start getting out of that mindset. Home prices are bouncing back, but it's not going to be the outrageous gains like it was a couple years ago.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And people like me? What you just said is an echo of what I've been saying in this discussion. If there's a slump in the middle, but you still end up on top and making more than you put into it, then your house has appreciated. If you buy on top and are either forced to sell in a slump, or a top like the one you bought at simply doesn't come along in time for you to sell at, then your house has depreciated.Kmarion wrote:
What matters in the end is what you paid initially and what you ended up selling for. Sure you may suffer depreciation in the short term, but if over the entire term of your ownership your home has gained value then your house has appreciated. If there is a slump in the middle but you still end up on top and making more than what you put into it (and also living rent free in the mean time) it called an appreciation. It is the big picture that is too often ignored by the media and people like you.mikkel wrote:
Whether or not you suffer from significant appreciation or depreciation depends on when you sell your house. If you bought 10 years ago in a period of market inflation, and you were to sell now, your house would've depreciated in value relative to your personal investment in it. You'd have to wait for an inflated market again to break even or sell at a profit. That is if you had a choice in the matter of when to sell, which many people don't.Kmarion wrote:
Of course they can depreciate in the short term.. However, as I said, for the most part anyone with any decent amount of time in their house has suffered from massive depreciation.
Houses are only worth what people will pay for them, and when that amount varies, the value of your home varies. Both positively and negatively.
What is it that you're trying to say here? Fluctuation necessitates both appreciation and depreciation as a logical consequence.
You say that home prices are bouncing back. What are they bouncing back from? A relative depreciation in value.Kmarion wrote:
I am fully aware of what a homes value is worth and how market condition affect value. It is in fact what I do for a living seven days a week. I'm selling a friends house now who bought in '02. The thought that he might only make 15k on the sale is horrifying to him... even though his home has appreciated, making him money. People need to start getting out of that mindset. Home prices are bouncing back, but it's not going to be the outrageous gains like it was a couple years ago.
It almost sounds like we're misunderstanding eachother here.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-05 16:07:44)
If you can't build something yourself, and have not the slightest clue what the costs involved are - someone will do it for you, and charge a mint for the "service". This pretty much describes the urban coastal state populations.
Add to that the silly heights that just the property costs in some states. Figured out the numbers for a friend's neighborhood in California, and it came out to like $20,000 for a pup-tent (32sq.ft.), port-a-potty (16 sq.ft), and parking spot for a Honda Civic (90sq.ft)
Add to that the silly heights that just the property costs in some states. Figured out the numbers for a friend's neighborhood in California, and it came out to like $20,000 for a pup-tent (32sq.ft.), port-a-potty (16 sq.ft), and parking spot for a Honda Civic (90sq.ft)
Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-02-05 16:51:36)
I am saying the same thing I have been trying to explain to you the entire thread. For the most part the majority of homeowners who sell after a reasonable amount of time are still making money off of their initial investment. The "slump" is only relative to the last couple of years. .. which most people actually aren't a part of (the majority of existing/current homeowners did not buy in 2004-2006). Historically home values have and still appreciate over the long term when compared to initial investment. If overall appreciation>depreciation I consider the whole to be appreciation. I don't see what's so lol about it.mikkel wrote:
And people like me? What you just said is an echo of what I've been saying in this discussion. If there's a slump in the middle, but you still end up on top and making more than you put into it, then your house has appreciated. If you buy on top and are either forced to sell in a slump, or a t)op like the one you bought at simply doesn't come along in time for you to sell at, then your house has depreciated.Kmarion wrote:
What matters in the end is what you paid initially and what you ended up selling for. Sure you may suffer depreciation in the short term, but if over the entire term of your ownership your home has gained value then your house has appreciated. If there is a slump in the middle but you still end up on top and making more than what you put into it (and also living rent free in the mean time) it called an appreciation. It is the big picture that is too often ignored by the media and people like you.mikkel wrote:
Whether or not you suffer from significant appreciation or depreciation depends on when you sell your house. If you bought 10 years ago in a period of market inflation, and you were to sell now, your house would've depreciated in value relative to your personal investment in it. You'd have to wait for an inflated market again to break even or sell at a profit. That is if you had a choice in the matter of when to sell, which many people don't.
Houses are only worth what people will pay for them, and when that amount varies, the value of your home varies. Both positively and negatively.
What is it that you're trying to say here? Fluctuation necessitates both appreciation and depreciation as a logical consequence.
Sydney said, "Houses don't (usually) depreciate in value. You said "lol".mikkel wrote:
You say that home prices are bouncing back. What are they bouncing back from? A relative depreciation in value.Kmarion wrote:
I am fully aware of what a homes value is worth and how market condition affect value. It is in fact what I do for a living seven days a week. I'm selling a friends house now who bought in '02. The thought that he might only make 15k on the sale is horrifying to him... even though his home has appreciated, making him money. People need to start getting out of that mindset. Home prices are bouncing back, but it's not going to be the outrageous gains like it was a couple years ago.
It almost sounds like we're misunderstanding eachother here.
I don't see what is so funny tbh. Right now median home prices sit at about $175400. Down considerably from a year ago but still up over the long term... which has been my entire contention.
If you use what the majority of homeowners count on, ten or more years, as a point of reference then prices have appreciated overall. I choose the long term since that is what most homeowners have invested in. Maybe we have been repeating each other.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think we were misunderstanding eachother. I concede that the median prices in the US rise far more than I expected them to, based on my experience with the Danish market, but my initial comment was aimed at the OP talking about the difficulties of shopping around for homes, and in that case, as your example of the decline in median home prices over the past year proves, relative short term depreciation is something that does exist, and something that you must consider when in the market for a new home.Kmarion wrote:
I am saying the same thing I have been trying to explain to you the entire thread. For the most part the majority of homeowners who sell after a reasonable amount of time are still making money off of their initial investment. The "slump" is only relative to the last couple of years. .. which most people actually aren't a part of (the majority of existing/current homeowners did not buy in 2004-2006). Historically home values have and still appreciate over the long term when compared to initial investment. If overall appreciation>depreciation I consider the whole to be appreciation. I don't see what's so lol about it.mikkel wrote:
And people like me? What you just said is an echo of what I've been saying in this discussion. If there's a slump in the middle, but you still end up on top and making more than you put into it, then your house has appreciated. If you buy on top and are either forced to sell in a slump, or a t)op like the one you bought at simply doesn't come along in time for you to sell at, then your house has depreciated.Kmarion wrote:
What matters in the end is what you paid initially and what you ended up selling for. Sure you may suffer depreciation in the short term, but if over the entire term of your ownership your home has gained value then your house has appreciated. If there is a slump in the middle but you still end up on top and making more than what you put into it (and also living rent free in the mean time) it called an appreciation. It is the big picture that is too often ignored by the media and people like you.
What is it that you're trying to say here? Fluctuation necessitates both appreciation and depreciation as a logical consequence.Sydney said, "Houses don't (usually) depreciate in value. You said "lol".mikkel wrote:
You say that home prices are bouncing back. What are they bouncing back from? A relative depreciation in value.Kmarion wrote:
I am fully aware of what a homes value is worth and how market condition affect value. It is in fact what I do for a living seven days a week. I'm selling a friends house now who bought in '02. The thought that he might only make 15k on the sale is horrifying to him... even though his home has appreciated, making him money. People need to start getting out of that mindset. Home prices are bouncing back, but it's not going to be the outrageous gains like it was a couple years ago.
It almost sounds like we're misunderstanding eachother here.
http://i41.tinypic.com/e8ti7q.gif
I don't see what is so funny tbh. Right now median home prices sit at about $175400. Down considerably from a year ago but still up over the long term... which has been my entire contention.
If you use what the majority of homeowners count on, ten or more years, as a point of reference then prices have appreciated overall. I choose the long term since that is what most homeowners have invested in. Maybe we have been repeating each other.
I sometimes tend to let discussions drag away from my initial points, and it seems that his is what happened. Apologies.
An investment in crippling property taxes, you mean. And then the local governments act dumbfounded when people complain about it..."but don't you want your home to be worth more?"Sydney wrote:
...the value actually goes up in time, therefore it is kind of an investment.
Visual improvements = guv arserape.
Thanks, houses, for increasing in price faster than upcoming generations can keep up with.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-02-06 03:15:13)