No bathtub—would you buy?

[Anonymous]

Do it. My bf bought a brownstone in NYC that had no tub. She went on to have two kids who are now in high school and college. They still don't have a tub in that house.

[Anonymous]

I’d never but a house without a tub. Those old cast iron tubs are so much nicer than the fiberglass ones they’re selling these days. The water stays warm so much longer. Yes, I’m including basic tubs from the 80s, not just claw-foot tubs. They don’t look nice to us because they were basic when we were kids.

Everything gets cheaper and cheaper. The sellers will really value a nice tub from the 50s. What’s the point of owning a cute older home if you don’t keep the charm?

[Anonymous]

I would but I don't need a tub. Our kids are older and we have a built in hot tub with our pool. I never use a bathtub

[Anonymous]

Hard no. We like baths at our house.

[Anonymous]

Did not make an offer on an otherwise great house with no tub.

[Anonymous]

Also team tub. Kids like them for bubble baths and adults like them for soaking, relaxing, and adult activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a stay of 10 years, do it. Only parents of young children need tubs.

It is for you and you are staying 10 years, get what you want.

We are doing personal stuff to our home and figure we will be here for 10 years as well. It is a small but nice house. I don’t want to think about reseal when the next owners might tear it down - like the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

We bought a house without a tub and put one in. Previous owners had taken it out to make a handicap accessible shower, but it was relatively easy and cheap to switch it back. If we couldn’t have added the tub back, we wouldn’t have bought it.

It will definitely limit your future buyers, but if you’ll be there 10+ years, who cares. It sounds like the land is more valuable than the house so maybe it will be torn down.

[Anonymous]

Remove the tub but leave the spigot, so at least a temporary "tub" can be put in place so that buyers don't feel like they have to immediately renovate.

[Anonymous]

My husband passed up many houses we saw because of no bathtub. We bought a house with one but turns out it’s too short for him.

[Anonymous]

I would keep 1 tub. You won't get that much storage for the space and it is a resale consideration. My whole family enjoys baths, would never consider a house without any.

[Anonymous]

Do it. Tubs are not necessary. And in 10 years your 1950s house is probably a tear-down, no offense. Have the bathroom you want.

Having a tub "for the kids" is a weird DCUM thing, and short-sighted given most people will be in their home for decades. It's easier to wash infants in the sink, and a kid who can sit up or stand can wash in a shower or use a Rubbermaid bin as a mini tub inside the shower.

[Anonymous]

I like taking a bath at least once a week.

[Anonymous]

I’m a tub person, but in my former neighborhood of 1940’s brick box houses, more and more people started getting rid of the tubs to replace them with large, new, updated showers. I think people at that price point want updated and luxurious more than they need a tub. So I don’t think getting rid of a tub would per se be the problem. But I do think getting rid of one of your two upstairs bathrooms entirely to add closet space is not a good idea, bc you’ll be putting your house in a lower price range for comps when it’s time to sell.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about tubs. They are mostly useless. Do it. It won’t hurt resale.