Three houses, which one will you choose (for a family of 3 : 2 adults ,1 kid) ?

Question

Option 1:
Condo on 2nd floor, built in 1984. $310,000.
2 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 covered parking spaces downstairs.
895 sq ft. No Lot. Share pool facilities with other 67 units.
Located in an Okay neighborhood. (acceptable; slightly better than average.)
HOA fees $225/month.
Commute to work 25 miles one way. (50-75 minutes with traffic.)

Option 2:
An attached single family house, built in 1935. $300,000.
2 bedroom, 1bath, 2 covered garage in front of house.
650 sq ft, with a back yard 2000 sq ft.
Located in a just So-so neighborhood.
No HOA fee.
Commute to work 20 miles one way. (50-60 minutes with traffic.)

Option 3:
An attached single family house, built in 1925. $302,000.
1 bedroom, 1bath, 1 covered garage next to building.
480 sq ft plus a covered patio (120 sq ft)
Lot size 1400 sq ft (can not be utilized for an 'add-on')
Located in a GOOD neighborhood.
HOA fees $40/month.
Commute to work 16 miles one way. (35-50 minutes with traffic.)

Answer 1

I'm torn between 2 and 3. On one hand, you've got a great backyard for all kinds of things. Camp-out, forts, (for the kid)cook-outs, etc. It would be awesome to give your kid a place to hang out with the friends (and you can keep an eye on him/her). If the drive doesn't bother you, then this sounds good to me. Unless so-so neighborhood involves gangs. Then, I would go to #3. Shorter drive time = more time with family, but very small (I'd think long and hard before cramming yourselves into that small of a space).
I definitely wouldn't do a condo (I own one right now and wish every day for a yard to plant in, etc and no one telling me what to do).

Good luck!

Answer 2

2

Answer 3

3

Answer 4

Option 2

Answer 5

Option 1. More square feet and the extra bathroom. And the newest, which may or may not be good. Construction was generally good quality in 1984. Add-on's can be so expensive, you'd do better to spend that extra money and buy what you need.

You just made me say my thanksgiving for where I live. For the same price we have 3600 sq. feet, limestone, inground pool and pool house on 3 lots.

Answer 6

I don't think any of those options sound good at all. I would keep on looking. Killer commutes and not enough bedrooms cause so much stress that it just isn't worth it in the long run.

Those prices are totally hideous for the square footage, where on earth do you live, maybe you'd consider moving to a less insanely expensive city?

Answer 7

I would go with #2 since you have a child. Children need a yard to play in. But how are the schools?? Number 3 definitely would not work with just 1 bedroom. Wow! houses are high where you live. best of luck to you!

Answer 8

I am not trying to be a jerk, but all three of those choices suck. If I were you, I would find a nice apartment to rent in a good community closer to work. This way, when your wife gets pregnant again, you don't have to sell the house cause it's too small. Not to mention not having to pay any HOA fees, mowing of grass, etc..

You know what's best for you.

Answer 9

Travelwise 3 is best but very small. If you could build one and add a bedroom and bath it would be best choice.

One seems best all around, though I really wouldn't go with any of them. But if you have to number 1. I like 2 but you want a good neighborhood and school.

Answer 10

option 3