i moved like 3 hrs outside of seattle, same thing. bunch of 250k 1-1.5k SF 100 year old homes, bunch of manufactured homes in the 50-100k range, and then a shitload of new builds popping up everywhere @ 400-600k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2012-S-62nd-Ave-Yakima-WA-98903/2056240295_zpid/
the not yet built ones i've seen get some pretty big cuts recently, this one -60k
No, I moved to the Pacific Northwest. However, from your response, I can see you've been to r/maine.
I do hope you enjoy it, but it can be a very challenging place to live.
I tried to buy houses in Port Townsend and was way over bid. Looked to buy land and talked to builders. It was at least a two year wait. Leavenworth and Twisp were the same way. I can sell my house in Seattle for over a million dollars and buy a comparable one in Maine for $500k to $600k. Tech hasn’t destroyed the housing market in Maine like it had in the Pacific NW.
I'm probably not a great person to ask. i mostly just work, game and do fitness stuff + didn't keep in contact with friends from highschool/uni. so sure, the area is fine but I also don't really do anything that is location dependent.
didn't want to live in an area I was wholly priced out of re:seattle bellevue redmond, not 100% convinced I'm not going to have to relocate for work either at some point. I make like idk, 100k base ~130-140k tc but I'm not in a traditional swe position and think my salary might cap out maybe at 140-150k max . and that just isnt comfy in that(bellevue kirkland redmond) area, ever. here, if i really wanted to I could own, even at todays really shit prices and rates.
70 miles which direction from the capital? You don't have to answer if you don't want to though. I used to live in Adel, west of Des Moines. It was a town of about 3.5k when I lived there. So small we shared our school system with two other towns. Sad to see things like this (both pricing and lack of space).
The point was that, in typical suburban fashion, the houses are wayyy too close together. Imagine paying single family prices just to be able to jerk your neighbor off through the window. And in Iowa, no less. Could not be me.
I mean honestly I could never live in a SFH willingly, but like, what exactly is the benefit of having a lot of land between the houses?
More land between houses is more land to maintain (not a fan of pushing a lawnmower in peak summer), and lower population density which generally means less or more expensive services. Less population density also means less dense businesses. If a grocery store needs 10,000 weekly customers to stay afloat, and the population density is something ridiculously low like 1000² mi, you're not going to have a grocery store close to your house. And with a lower population density that also means less potential employees, so businesses are more skeptical of their ability to maintain a decent talent pool within commuting distance. And then people complain about gas prices. And you can forget about fiber internet, public transportation of any kind.
The houses are feet apart, even if the walls are made of literal cardboard you don't even have to worry about noise unless your neighbor decides to start blast mining in their backyard.
I don't expect anywhere in Iowa to become Manhattan anytime soon, but like, for the Iowans that *aren't* literal farmers, I don't see the purpose of owning an acre of land when it isn't making you any money.
I we have 8 acres of pristine old growth forest in a hill.
Taking a naked hot tub whenever you want or inviting 80 friends over for a massive party late into the night without needing to worry about imposing on a neighbor is incredible.
I would never want to have to look at another house out my window - it’s all gorgeous woods that change with the seasons.
That’s really great, but real natural land is very different from a nice big plot in a development with lots of… lawn.
Forrest is natural and great. Lawns are high maintenance ecological and economical disasters.
As long as that development isn't an HOA you can just rip out all the lawn and replace with pollinator garden, food crops, fruit trees whatever you'd like. That's actually the moral thing to do.
An acre is a nice size lot. I grew up in a neighborhood were lots were about that size. Most of the homes were originally small ranches, but the owners pretty much all added on over the years - garages, decks, second stories, screened in porches, etc. There was enough woods in the back yards to make you forget there was another street behind them. Depending how the neighbors did their landscaping, there was enough room for either a pool without taking up the whole yard, or a flat area where we kids could play football or baseball, etc. Even with all that space, the families and kids on the street all knew each other. It was nice.
My wife and I have a house on a quarter of an acre. It barely feels like enough. We have a front yard and a back yard, but they both seem small. Neither a garage nor a pool are ever happening. Maybe we could if we wanted to regrade the lot, but we'd give up almost all of the yard space. I do think that optimally-laid out new construction on 1/4 of an acre could probably make room for the yard and the expansion space, though. We have friends with houses on smaller lots, and they basically only have enough room for a driveway and a place to put a grill. My experience is thus that between 1/4 and 2 acres are probably the sweet spot for suburban living with kids. I get that it's not efficient, and that kids have a host of other benefits growing up in denser neighborhoods, but there is just something about having "enough" of your own space.
> but like, what exactly is the benefit of having a lot of land between the houses?
Privacy. Your own outdoor space to enjoy.
> More land between houses is more land to maintain (not a fan of pushing a lawnmower in peak summer)
So get a self-propelled and pop in some earbuds while you walk behind it.
> and lower population density which generally means less or more expensive services
The prices of goods in your WEF-style dense cities compared to their prices in more spread out ones proves this laughably wrong. This is an outright lie.
If you have land between houses you have more flexibility to have the property grown and adapt with you as your life changes and your family changes. Otherwise you have to constantly uproot to move to a different property whenever something in your life forces a change. Churn is a big problem in American cities and is why so many of them are soulless.
Execs did.
Unique story I’ll share… had a family get together last Xmas (2022). My cousin is in his 60s… bigwig CEO… can’t say where because he’d be easy to find/name.
Anyway, we were talking about work stuff, I told him how we moved out of the city, went rural, working remote since 2020, etc. He said, “Well, good luck with that.”
I said, “what do you mean?” He replied, “Everyone is going back to the office - and soon. It’s something we’ve all (he was referring to other corporate CEOs) been talking about.”
He thought there would be massive sweeping RTO policies and that everyone would be back in the office by spring. I guess they never really expected any pushback.
Screw the CEOs.
RTO will happen. Many companies have spent a lot of money on infrastructure for new buildings and will lose money if they can’t Keep them occupied.
It would be similar to someone buying an expensive and never living it. You still have the expenses and companies need to make a profit to survive.
Nah.
There are investment companies buying up the empty office buildings and converting them to other uses.
Check out Hamilton Investment Properties. They’re just one fund (of many) that’s doing this…
https://hamiltonptinv.com/properties/
What kind of other uses?
I was also referring to companies like Expedia , Goolagong, Meta, Amazon,etc that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new buildings. They are constantly building . You don’t spend this kind of money if you don’t thing RTI will be implemented.
You need to look at the bigger picture… Google, Meta, and Apple own a tiny fraction of the available office space in the USA. Most office towers are owned by real estate investment firms that lease space to smaller companies. A lot of them are now upside down on their loans and selling the properties at a loss to other investors who will repurpose them.
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/08/28/denver-office-towers-residential-conversion-apartments-reuse/amp/
I work in construction. It is very expensive to convert office buildings to residential. The units being built are going to be very expensive. This is. It going to help the housing market.
Many businesses will also relocate to much cheaper locations. When I was a kid growing up we had a lot of manufacturing in the area. When it got too expensive to operate their (people wanted higher wages and taxes were higher) they moved out of state where it was cheaper and then eventually out of the country.
There are a lot of jobs that cannot be done remotely auto mechanics, health care providers, several retailers, etc. when these companies leaves it impacts the economy of an area.
Remote work has actually done more to damage the economy than make it better. People are working for companies in SF, LA and Seattle getting paid HCOL wages and then moving to cheap places to work remotely . Drives up the price of real estate in those areas forcing a housing crises for the locals and people who can’t work remotely.
# $375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 away from the state capital. Literally Corn and Old People for miles.
^(ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE FOR A BOX SO CLOSE I CAN REACH OUT THE WINDOW AND TOUCH THE OTHER BOX. WE REALLY ARE ON THE WORSE TIMELINE.)
This is absurd and why I refuse to hear the argument that cost of living and housing prices are something people in coastal cities and trendy metros (like Nashville, Austin and Denver) are blighted by because they just want to live somewhere “cool”. The rude and sarcastic boomer argument of “well I’d love to have a penthouse in New York City” but that we “can’t all have what we want so move somewhere less populated” flies right out the window with these prices. And its nationwide in Iowa, Ohio, and Texas.. places where the first thing people say about them is “well it’s more affordable!” and I just want to gesture wildly at this shit to them and make them explain to be the value of this.
I think this is what ppl miss. If these are going for anywhere between $200-300/sqft probably not much margin there for the builder depending on the quality of finishes.
You get ghetto housing for $350k on the coast and trendy metro areas.
Only reason these are that cheap is because they use cheaper corn fields to build on. Reality is construction is expensive, that isn't changing because you can't accept it.
it means these houses are unaffordable and probably shouldn't be built for that area.
material cost? ok luxury houses then really.
good luck. sure as hell they aint building for local community.
> it means these houses are unaffordable and probably shouldn't be built for that area.
What are you basing that on? Even in rural communities I'd wager you can find blue collar professions like police officer, truck driver, or (moving up the ladder a little) teacher to pull in $45K per year. A cop married to a teacher would be around $90K, they can afford a $375K house.
I feel like a lot of people on this sub have some sort of mental block where they believe everything over $250K is reserved for the fabulously wealthy.
Depends on the size of homes.. a 1500sqft home yes very overpriced. 2500sqft+ probably not overpriced. Obviously they are selling them so someone is buying them..... You should really look at cost to build a standard home these days. Materials for a standard home are high .
2500 sqft is likely going to be for a family of 5+ at least else it makes no sense.
for a couple with and 1 kid hell no.
for a single definitely not either.
most likely investors buy these and just rent them out thinking many will room up because they have no choice since there isn't any single family houses or affordable apt in the area.
since all they make are over priced houses no one wants to buy except investors to rent out like apts.
if thats the case just make APT stupid cause no one buying this shit but investors that will bail anyway
Sure are a whole lot of assumptions on your part especially when all I asked was for the OP to elaborate on size of homes. Anyway good luck with your conspiracy that a 2500sqft home is for 5+ family members. Mine is 2800sqft with 3 of us.... Where I live 2000sqft+ sells and 1500sqft and under sits on the market for weeks or months. Nobody in my area wants a small home. These aren't investors either. By the way if the people who live in that area can't afford to buy some of those homes then there's no chance that they get rented out either. Rent would be higher than the mortgage otherwise the Investor isn't making a good enough cash flow for it to be worth the risk even if they paid cash for the homes.
I mean, regardless of location it costs a lot to build right now. Rural means you have less labor available and extra shipping costs.
200/sq ft is about the minimum a builder can charge and make a profit on a house at the moment. I’m guessing these are about that.
But they've decided if you're not wealthy, you deserve no breathing space. Either you're gonna rent one of their apartments, or you're gonna buy one of these 'starter homes', and they are gonna maximize how many they put per acre, so they can get richer faster.
Good point. This is specifically why I looked to find a home in a nice mature neighborhood from the 70s back when corporate greed was still tamed to a degree. So much room between the homes you could fit another whole house between them. Nice 1/3 acre lots that the kids can forage to their hearts content and do landscaping projects or have a massive garden all day. Also private and very quiet with matures trees throughout.
These new zoned communities have lost the plot and the greed is out of control. Might as well be living in a townhome or apartment because this ain’t it.
Lol just give up man. We lost, the boat left without us. No point in getting upset anymore. Maybe we will hit the lottery or come up with a great business idea one day…until then it is make another man rich by renting
Not sure where these are, but I found new construction 1500-2000 sq foot homes available in Des Moines for between 340-400k. Though, property taxes seem really high in Iowa, like 500 a month.
Let’s put in perspective. 70 miles in Iowa would be an hr from Des Moises. In places like Boston, Seattle or LA it can take people an hr to drive 20 miles from an overpriced home that is wayyy more expensive than that in a boring town to the city. And some people do it everyday.
People don't want to live cheek to jowl with other people. They actually enjoy having their own private space.
People who live in apartments do so because that's all they can afford.
Why would you want to live in an inefficient, expensive, poorly made box where your bathroom looks into your neighbors' bedroom with no viable outdoor space?
New construction costs a lot of money. Probably $100-200 (edit: per sqft) even if you get the lot for free and ready to build.
The fact that a big 100 year old house was selling for $75,000 a few years ago has no bearing on the cost of building a house.
There are a lot of factors that are changing the housing market.
1) Remote work. People can now live where ever they want and don’t need to be near a big city.
2) people retiring- 20,00O Americans turn 65 every month. As the population ages retirees move and may want to live in more rural places.
3) influx of people moving from high cost to low cost of living areas.
A lot of people no longer need to live in an urban age or want to after the pandemic.
I get the compliant but I don't think anyone who comments is thinking about this from a developer perspective. you're not going to offer housing at a razor thin profit margin considering the time and money you invest and the risk you take on. Turning raw land into a subdivision is no small feat.
SC is like this too. Except existing homes are severely overpriced too, so you may get a new build for right at 300k but mobile homes that aren’t falling apart are going for 200k or more and existing home for 350k. You can find cheaper homes but there are not many.
Lol trailer park home for $200k. One has to be an idiot to buy that. Just buy a nice RV instead and have TRUE mobile home without paying for park lot fee, which are not cheap.
They homes usually have underpinnings and aren't in a trailer park. But they are older mobile homes....various amounts of land, from barely anything to a lot. I've seen prices up to $250k for them in my area. It's quite insane here
Absolutely insane. People aren’t getting more money either. They’re now spending money on housing that they used to spend for family vacations, recreation, investment, etc. The banks can take more from people, so they are.
They’re doing this by me. Everyone always laughs but Florida doesn’t have a ton of available land, so they’re building like 1 hour 30 outside Tampa in an area called Hudson. Not sure why flat areas without swamp are doing this tho.
350k
Closest so far, starting at $375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 mile away from the state capital.
i moved like 3 hrs outside of seattle, same thing. bunch of 250k 1-1.5k SF 100 year old homes, bunch of manufactured homes in the 50-100k range, and then a shitload of new builds popping up everywhere @ 400-600k https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2012-S-62nd-Ave-Yakima-WA-98903/2056240295_zpid/ the not yet built ones i've seen get some pretty big cuts recently, this one -60k
I live in Seattle. Washington is way overpriced! I am moving to Maine.
Good luck winning a bidding war in Maine.
Thanks for the encouragement. I just bought two acres 10 mins from the beach for $25,000 to build a house on.
Good luck hiring a contractor.
Thanks but I’m a contractor myself
Good luck finding lumber to build with.
Jokes on you, I’m a forest
So positive. I’m guessing you also live in Maine and are not encouraging people to move there.
No, I moved to the Pacific Northwest. However, from your response, I can see you've been to r/maine. I do hope you enjoy it, but it can be a very challenging place to live.
I have lived in the Pacific Northwest and would say the same thing. Way to expensive , and way many people moving there.
I tried to buy houses in Port Townsend and was way over bid. Looked to buy land and talked to builders. It was at least a two year wait. Leavenworth and Twisp were the same way. I can sell my house in Seattle for over a million dollars and buy a comparable one in Maine for $500k to $600k. Tech hasn’t destroyed the housing market in Maine like it had in the Pacific NW.
How about something more like congratulations on choosing a place to live where the way life should be!
I lived in Maine for five years. When I say good luck, I'm earnestly hoping you have better luck than I did.
Do you like this area? I was considering this area but I do prefer living on the west side.
I'm probably not a great person to ask. i mostly just work, game and do fitness stuff + didn't keep in contact with friends from highschool/uni. so sure, the area is fine but I also don't really do anything that is location dependent. didn't want to live in an area I was wholly priced out of re:seattle bellevue redmond, not 100% convinced I'm not going to have to relocate for work either at some point. I make like idk, 100k base ~130-140k tc but I'm not in a traditional swe position and think my salary might cap out maybe at 140-150k max . and that just isnt comfy in that(bellevue kirkland redmond) area, ever. here, if i really wanted to I could own, even at todays really shit prices and rates.
Jesus
[удалено]
Same housing model, cheap land. It will cost less than or around $250k
70 miles which direction from the capital? You don't have to answer if you don't want to though. I used to live in Adel, west of Des Moines. It was a town of about 3.5k when I lived there. So small we shared our school system with two other towns. Sad to see things like this (both pricing and lack of space).
South East on 163. I live in Atlantic. Rent for a 1br/1ba is $1200 here and now.
I know. Miles of cornfields as far as the eye can see, but you get a 10' side yard and the shortest possible driveway.
That’s insane.
Is there even a grocery store jn a place that small?
Well I’m sure they saved on not needing windows on 2 sides of the houses.
What do you mean, these are single family houses.
The point was that, in typical suburban fashion, the houses are wayyy too close together. Imagine paying single family prices just to be able to jerk your neighbor off through the window. And in Iowa, no less. Could not be me.
They must be trying to sell to politicians if everyone is close enough to jerk each other off.
I mean honestly I could never live in a SFH willingly, but like, what exactly is the benefit of having a lot of land between the houses? More land between houses is more land to maintain (not a fan of pushing a lawnmower in peak summer), and lower population density which generally means less or more expensive services. Less population density also means less dense businesses. If a grocery store needs 10,000 weekly customers to stay afloat, and the population density is something ridiculously low like 1000² mi, you're not going to have a grocery store close to your house. And with a lower population density that also means less potential employees, so businesses are more skeptical of their ability to maintain a decent talent pool within commuting distance. And then people complain about gas prices. And you can forget about fiber internet, public transportation of any kind. The houses are feet apart, even if the walls are made of literal cardboard you don't even have to worry about noise unless your neighbor decides to start blast mining in their backyard. I don't expect anywhere in Iowa to become Manhattan anytime soon, but like, for the Iowans that *aren't* literal farmers, I don't see the purpose of owning an acre of land when it isn't making you any money.
I we have 8 acres of pristine old growth forest in a hill. Taking a naked hot tub whenever you want or inviting 80 friends over for a massive party late into the night without needing to worry about imposing on a neighbor is incredible. I would never want to have to look at another house out my window - it’s all gorgeous woods that change with the seasons.
That’s really great, but real natural land is very different from a nice big plot in a development with lots of… lawn. Forrest is natural and great. Lawns are high maintenance ecological and economical disasters.
As long as that development isn't an HOA you can just rip out all the lawn and replace with pollinator garden, food crops, fruit trees whatever you'd like. That's actually the moral thing to do.
An acre is a nice size lot. I grew up in a neighborhood were lots were about that size. Most of the homes were originally small ranches, but the owners pretty much all added on over the years - garages, decks, second stories, screened in porches, etc. There was enough woods in the back yards to make you forget there was another street behind them. Depending how the neighbors did their landscaping, there was enough room for either a pool without taking up the whole yard, or a flat area where we kids could play football or baseball, etc. Even with all that space, the families and kids on the street all knew each other. It was nice. My wife and I have a house on a quarter of an acre. It barely feels like enough. We have a front yard and a back yard, but they both seem small. Neither a garage nor a pool are ever happening. Maybe we could if we wanted to regrade the lot, but we'd give up almost all of the yard space. I do think that optimally-laid out new construction on 1/4 of an acre could probably make room for the yard and the expansion space, though. We have friends with houses on smaller lots, and they basically only have enough room for a driveway and a place to put a grill. My experience is thus that between 1/4 and 2 acres are probably the sweet spot for suburban living with kids. I get that it's not efficient, and that kids have a host of other benefits growing up in denser neighborhoods, but there is just something about having "enough" of your own space.
zero-scaping exists
> but like, what exactly is the benefit of having a lot of land between the houses? Privacy. Your own outdoor space to enjoy. > More land between houses is more land to maintain (not a fan of pushing a lawnmower in peak summer) So get a self-propelled and pop in some earbuds while you walk behind it. > and lower population density which generally means less or more expensive services The prices of goods in your WEF-style dense cities compared to their prices in more spread out ones proves this laughably wrong. This is an outright lie.
If you have land between houses you have more flexibility to have the property grown and adapt with you as your life changes and your family changes. Otherwise you have to constantly uproot to move to a different property whenever something in your life forces a change. Churn is a big problem in American cities and is why so many of them are soulless.
*squints* oh yeah there is a gap.
Ok I’m gonna go the “price is right” route: $399,999
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
Rural is still insanely hot. WFH is still big. RTO isn’t happening like everyone thought it would.
Did everyone think RTO would happen?
Execs did. Unique story I’ll share… had a family get together last Xmas (2022). My cousin is in his 60s… bigwig CEO… can’t say where because he’d be easy to find/name. Anyway, we were talking about work stuff, I told him how we moved out of the city, went rural, working remote since 2020, etc. He said, “Well, good luck with that.” I said, “what do you mean?” He replied, “Everyone is going back to the office - and soon. It’s something we’ve all (he was referring to other corporate CEOs) been talking about.” He thought there would be massive sweeping RTO policies and that everyone would be back in the office by spring. I guess they never really expected any pushback. Screw the CEOs.
Ha, that's funny.
Blackstone sure thought they’d push everyone back to the office.
RTO will happen. Many companies have spent a lot of money on infrastructure for new buildings and will lose money if they can’t Keep them occupied. It would be similar to someone buying an expensive and never living it. You still have the expenses and companies need to make a profit to survive.
And many companies are now turning over the keys to those buildings back to the banks because they can’t pay the loan.
And the banks will fail and stop issuing residential loans .
Nah. There are investment companies buying up the empty office buildings and converting them to other uses. Check out Hamilton Investment Properties. They’re just one fund (of many) that’s doing this… https://hamiltonptinv.com/properties/
What kind of other uses? I was also referring to companies like Expedia , Goolagong, Meta, Amazon,etc that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new buildings. They are constantly building . You don’t spend this kind of money if you don’t thing RTI will be implemented.
You need to look at the bigger picture… Google, Meta, and Apple own a tiny fraction of the available office space in the USA. Most office towers are owned by real estate investment firms that lease space to smaller companies. A lot of them are now upside down on their loans and selling the properties at a loss to other investors who will repurpose them. https://www.denverpost.com/2023/08/28/denver-office-towers-residential-conversion-apartments-reuse/amp/
I work in construction. It is very expensive to convert office buildings to residential. The units being built are going to be very expensive. This is. It going to help the housing market. Many businesses will also relocate to much cheaper locations. When I was a kid growing up we had a lot of manufacturing in the area. When it got too expensive to operate their (people wanted higher wages and taxes were higher) they moved out of state where it was cheaper and then eventually out of the country. There are a lot of jobs that cannot be done remotely auto mechanics, health care providers, several retailers, etc. when these companies leaves it impacts the economy of an area. Remote work has actually done more to damage the economy than make it better. People are working for companies in SF, LA and Seattle getting paid HCOL wages and then moving to cheap places to work remotely . Drives up the price of real estate in those areas forcing a housing crises for the locals and people who can’t work remotely.
It's Iowa it's basically Minnesota with nothing in it
# $375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 away from the state capital. Literally Corn and Old People for miles. ^(ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE FOR A BOX SO CLOSE I CAN REACH OUT THE WINDOW AND TOUCH THE OTHER BOX. WE REALLY ARE ON THE WORSE TIMELINE.)
This is absurd and why I refuse to hear the argument that cost of living and housing prices are something people in coastal cities and trendy metros (like Nashville, Austin and Denver) are blighted by because they just want to live somewhere “cool”. The rude and sarcastic boomer argument of “well I’d love to have a penthouse in New York City” but that we “can’t all have what we want so move somewhere less populated” flies right out the window with these prices. And its nationwide in Iowa, Ohio, and Texas.. places where the first thing people say about them is “well it’s more affordable!” and I just want to gesture wildly at this shit to them and make them explain to be the value of this.
How much do you think the construction cost is for a SFH of average size? I wager its not too far from the selling price
I think this is what ppl miss. If these are going for anywhere between $200-300/sqft probably not much margin there for the builder depending on the quality of finishes.
100-125K. They make a ton of money on each house.
Nowhere close unfortunately
You don't have the scale to build houses for the price that a major homebuilder can.
You get ghetto housing for $350k on the coast and trendy metro areas. Only reason these are that cheap is because they use cheaper corn fields to build on. Reality is construction is expensive, that isn't changing because you can't accept it.
In my coastal elite city at least 375K will get you a duplex
At least lawn upkeep is simple
What size are the homes? $375k could be reasonable considering construction cost these days.
it means these houses are unaffordable and probably shouldn't be built for that area. material cost? ok luxury houses then really. good luck. sure as hell they aint building for local community.
> it means these houses are unaffordable and probably shouldn't be built for that area. What are you basing that on? Even in rural communities I'd wager you can find blue collar professions like police officer, truck driver, or (moving up the ladder a little) teacher to pull in $45K per year. A cop married to a teacher would be around $90K, they can afford a $375K house. I feel like a lot of people on this sub have some sort of mental block where they believe everything over $250K is reserved for the fabulously wealthy.
3x 90k is 270k that is where max price should be on avg median. where did you get another 105k from? This house is for 125k households.
The 3x multiplier isn't a hard and fast rule dude.
At 0% not when interest all time high gg get wrecked land lord
Depends on the size of homes.. a 1500sqft home yes very overpriced. 2500sqft+ probably not overpriced. Obviously they are selling them so someone is buying them..... You should really look at cost to build a standard home these days. Materials for a standard home are high .
2500 sqft is likely going to be for a family of 5+ at least else it makes no sense. for a couple with and 1 kid hell no. for a single definitely not either. most likely investors buy these and just rent them out thinking many will room up because they have no choice since there isn't any single family houses or affordable apt in the area. since all they make are over priced houses no one wants to buy except investors to rent out like apts. if thats the case just make APT stupid cause no one buying this shit but investors that will bail anyway
Sure are a whole lot of assumptions on your part especially when all I asked was for the OP to elaborate on size of homes. Anyway good luck with your conspiracy that a 2500sqft home is for 5+ family members. Mine is 2800sqft with 3 of us.... Where I live 2000sqft+ sells and 1500sqft and under sits on the market for weeks or months. Nobody in my area wants a small home. These aren't investors either. By the way if the people who live in that area can't afford to buy some of those homes then there's no chance that they get rented out either. Rent would be higher than the mortgage otherwise the Investor isn't making a good enough cash flow for it to be worth the risk even if they paid cash for the homes.
And are people buying? If so, then there is your market. If not, there is your market. What are you actually complaining about?
I mean, regardless of location it costs a lot to build right now. Rural means you have less labor available and extra shipping costs. 200/sq ft is about the minimum a builder can charge and make a profit on a house at the moment. I’m guessing these are about that.
Idk but these houses are way wayyyy too close together. I would never consider purchasing a home that close to the next building.
But they've decided if you're not wealthy, you deserve no breathing space. Either you're gonna rent one of their apartments, or you're gonna buy one of these 'starter homes', and they are gonna maximize how many they put per acre, so they can get richer faster.
Good point. This is specifically why I looked to find a home in a nice mature neighborhood from the 70s back when corporate greed was still tamed to a degree. So much room between the homes you could fit another whole house between them. Nice 1/3 acre lots that the kids can forage to their hearts content and do landscaping projects or have a massive garden all day. Also private and very quiet with matures trees throughout. These new zoned communities have lost the plot and the greed is out of control. Might as well be living in a townhome or apartment because this ain’t it.
What’s the town? The answer is a lot different if it’s outside of Spencer vs outside of Iowa City or Des Moines
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
Lol just give up man. We lost, the boat left without us. No point in getting upset anymore. Maybe we will hit the lottery or come up with a great business idea one day…until then it is make another man rich by renting
The whole "4000 sqft lot with 3000 sqft house" thing is getting really old.
$374,999
Not sure where these are, but I found new construction 1500-2000 sq foot homes available in Des Moines for between 340-400k. Though, property taxes seem really high in Iowa, like 500 a month.
Median price of a home in the US now 407K. The more it rises the more it will detonate.
Let’s put in perspective. 70 miles in Iowa would be an hr from Des Moises. In places like Boston, Seattle or LA it can take people an hr to drive 20 miles from an overpriced home that is wayyy more expensive than that in a boring town to the city. And some people do it everyday.
Just give us the price already!
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
At that point just build a nice apartment building and have the rest be a pleasant commons park. Goofy land use.
People don't want to live cheek to jowl with other people. They actually enjoy having their own private space. People who live in apartments do so because that's all they can afford.
Not like they have much of privacy in new homes. Just look at the plot sizes. You can shake hands from your homes.
People don’t want to raise children in apartments.
why tf would you want to live in an apartment building in a town of 2000 people
Why would you want to live in an inefficient, expensive, poorly made box where your bathroom looks into your neighbors' bedroom with no viable outdoor space?
because that still sounds way better than living in an apartment?
$1.
RIP Bob Barker
New construction costs a lot of money. Probably $100-200 (edit: per sqft) even if you get the lot for free and ready to build. The fact that a big 100 year old house was selling for $75,000 a few years ago has no bearing on the cost of building a house.
Between 300-400k. It's still rural Iowa, so I doubt it's on the high end of that.
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
There are a lot of factors that are changing the housing market. 1) Remote work. People can now live where ever they want and don’t need to be near a big city. 2) people retiring- 20,00O Americans turn 65 every month. As the population ages retirees move and may want to live in more rural places. 3) influx of people moving from high cost to low cost of living areas. A lot of people no longer need to live in an urban age or want to after the pandemic.
I get the compliant but I don't think anyone who comments is thinking about this from a developer perspective. you're not going to offer housing at a razor thin profit margin considering the time and money you invest and the risk you take on. Turning raw land into a subdivision is no small feat.
This sub makes no sense: 1 post says we need higher density houses and the next says omg you can touch your neighbor…
These are $150k homes at best. That’s the part that pisses me off.
More than 200k in fucming Iowa??????
💀 There’s 100 year old shitholes going for $220k just a couple blocks away.
More than you can afford pal
How does a town of 2,000 people have the COL of Denver?
You can’t buy a new home in Denver for $375k
Lol it was a reference from 2 fast 2 furious
That's the cost of selling like 30 acres of row cropping land and they are moving to town paying cash for those houses....
550k
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
It’s gonna be rich foreigners buying it and then renting them out
$999,999
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
hot one today, huh
780
Close, $375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
450k
1M each
80k
[удалено]
$375k, in a town of 2,000 people 70 miles away from the state capital.
What is 70 away means? 70 miles? 70 minutes? 70 football fields?
70 miles or 633571 banana stacked on end.
I'm guessing we're meant to be outraged. Rural Iowa could still be 50 minutes from something. I'll go with the highest here at $515k
SC is like this too. Except existing homes are severely overpriced too, so you may get a new build for right at 300k but mobile homes that aren’t falling apart are going for 200k or more and existing home for 350k. You can find cheaper homes but there are not many.
Lol trailer park home for $200k. One has to be an idiot to buy that. Just buy a nice RV instead and have TRUE mobile home without paying for park lot fee, which are not cheap.
They homes usually have underpinnings and aren't in a trailer park. But they are older mobile homes....various amounts of land, from barely anything to a lot. I've seen prices up to $250k for them in my area. It's quite insane here
$500,000
Absolutely insane. People aren’t getting more money either. They’re now spending money on housing that they used to spend for family vacations, recreation, investment, etc. The banks can take more from people, so they are.
They’re doing this by me. Everyone always laughs but Florida doesn’t have a ton of available land, so they’re building like 1 hour 30 outside Tampa in an area called Hudson. Not sure why flat areas without swamp are doing this tho.
Stupid prices
Starting at $200000
Way too much for how little yard you get. Those are basically barely-detached townhomes.
I’d it’s Pella that’s an outlier in Iowa but damnnn