Choice of Residence

[plumtreeblossom]

[Poll #690264]

I realized that almost everyone considers both factors to some degree. But I'm interested in seeing to which side more people lean, which is why I didn't put a "Both Equal" option. Choose whichever is of more importance to you, and feel free to discuss.

Comments

[saturn939.livejournal.com]

I actually wouldn't want a large home. Large homes make me think of heating bills and how to keep the thing clean. I'd prefer as small a home as could comfortably accommodate me and my stuff, and I'd definitely want it to be in an area I'm comfortable with. Location and community rank MUCH more important than size of property with me.

-Dej

[mangosteen]

You can change the property. You can't change the location.

The best advice I ever got on the home selection process was "choose five things that are completely non-negotiable, and be flexible on everything else."

[wellstar.livejournal.com]

As of now I'm the only person to have chosen the first option. However, I choose it with the caveat that "largest" does not necessarily mean "best." Small is okay if there is character compatible with me. When I walk through the door of my home, I want to feel completely, well, at home. Decoration can take me a good ways there, but if the building itself doesn't welcome me, I don't want to be there. I don't mind traveling to be with my preferred community, but I do mind inviting people to a home that isn't representative of who I am.

I actually feel like my interpretation of the first answer isn't all that different than your description in the second answer. I'm more concerned with the property (inside and out) being compatible with my lifestyle/taste, than the area surrounding it.

[istemi.livejournal.com]

That's a false dichotomy. You need a home you can live in. A large home 120 miles from work or a choice Davis Square condo that bankrupts the owner are both untenable.

( The coworker commuting from Easthampton to Waltham is moving closer in. The one who commuted from the Cape found a job closer to home.)

I'd compromise a certain amount in either direction, but purchasing a home is too expensive if you're going to be miserable in it.

[fragile-rage.livejournal.com]

I have seen homes that otherwise may be valued around $300,000.00 be listed for half a million or more simply because they are in an upscale neighborhood. The location and community will carry more weight in the seller market than the house actually will. At the same time, I have seen people way over build in a neighborhood that doesn't carry the market and they loose their shirts in the end. They can't get out of it what they put into it.

[moria923.livejournal.com]

For us proximity to public transit was absolutely essential. One of the things that most sold us on this place was its being a block away from the red line. But there also seemed to be a good community evolving here, including several people we already knew. And the big backyard didn't hurt, either.

[earthling177.livejournal.com]

I don't like either of the options you provided, so I'll try to explain.

There are lots of things that are important to me but not the most important. Sure, a nice community by the subway is wonderful. A snotty, overpriced community by the subway is not ideal.

I am flexible about the size of the property and the unit. I prefer near the subway (buses are not as attractive to me, given how they fail to work well in MA, particularly when it snows).

I prefer communities that will let you live your life and will not intrude and tell you what you can or cannot do to your life or home -- that pretty much eliminates large amounts of places in this state that either have a "homeowners' association" or a "historic society". When you find out that you might be sued because you painted your home a color you like or the blinds/curtain liners in your living room are not the right kind/color, almost anything else will turn sour, no matter how nice looking the "community" is or how much of a deal the property was to me... other people have different views, and they should go live in the restrictive communities and let me live my life.

The best home for my dollar takes top billing, and it's why I chose that option. If you buy a home that needs lots of renovations, you will end up overpaying, particularly in restrictive neighborhoods. I'm always astounded when people buy a home for close to half-a-million bucks, then This Old House comes and spends another million to fix it up to livable -- I don't think they'll *ever* get to sell the home for a million and half bucks, even if people would pay more to buy a home that was remodeled by This Old House, which I doubt.

People keep saying you can change anything except the location, but they have not lived in certain areas that restrict severely what you can do to your home -- there was a property that burned down in Harvard Square a few years ago and, wouldn't you know it, the powers-that-be wouldn't even let the owners rebuild the place the way it was because now they wanted all kinds of setbacks that would essentially mean the new place would be maybe 10x10 feet and, to top it off, that is "too small" to let anyone have a certificate of occupancy. So, the owners had to take a very extended time to "remodel" room by room. Really, if that's allowed, then why didn't they give the owners a variance from the start? Did they really want to be the stupid assholes of the year?