buying a condo with $350HOA fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine includes all utilities, parking, maintenance. what does the 350 cover?

water, poool, maintenance (landscaping,etc)

That's still a bit high, I lived in a condo in DC that covered electricity, gas, water etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

[Anonymous]

fees also cover snow removal on walks and in the parking lots

[Anonymous]

That’s a low condo fee! It must not have a concierge or many amenities. I left my condo for a sfh and I miss my condo so much. Easy times.

[Anonymous]

I am treasurer of a condo that is extremely careful on managing expenses. We charge $350 a month which is break even.
Insurance, legal fees, gutter cleaning, lawn service, sprinkler service, snow removal, roofs, siding, parking lots, fences, sidewalks, replacing bulbs, replacing sump pumps, heating common areas costs money.

We have no elevators, garages or amenities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

First of all I said “mid rise.”
A 2-3 story building isn’t a mid-rise. And of course you don’t need an elevator for a two story building.

But once you’re three or above, yes it makes a difference in value. It may not make financial sense for a building to add one to a three story building where there isn’t one already, but upper level units in three story condo buildings with elevators are absolutely more valuable than and easier to sell than units without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

First of all I said “mid rise.”
A 2-3 story building isn’t a mid-rise. And of course you don’t need an elevator for a two story building.

But once you’re three or above, yes it makes a difference in value. It may not make financial sense for a building to add one to a three story building where there isn’t one already, but upper level units in three story condo buildings with elevators are absolutely more valuable than and easier to sell than units without them.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

First of all I said “mid rise.”
A 2-3 story building isn’t a mid-rise. And of course you don’t need an elevator for a two story building.

But once you’re three or above, yes it makes a difference in value. It may not make financial sense for a building to add one to a three story building where there isn’t one already, but upper level units in three story condo buildings with elevators are absolutely more valuable than and easier to sell than units without them.

You said you were in a mid-rise. Then you said a condo building must have an elevator. I was pointing out that it depends on the size of the building, which you agree it does. Not just height but number of units. The top floor unit in our building might benefit from an elevator, but it's a very nice unit with a lovely roof deck and has sold fine in the past. None of the other units would benefit.

The point is that a building does not HAVE to have an elevator to be a good purchase, and actually one of the benefits to buying in a smaller building is that it may not need an elevator, which is a major expense and can raise fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s a low condo fee! It must not have a concierge or many amenities. I left my condo for a sfh and I miss my condo so much. Easy times.

Yep, this is why you buy a condo. In terms of appreciation, location matters so much more. You're not going to see the same appreciation as a sfh but if you are located next to a metro and restaurants, grocers, etc, you will experience some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a low condo fee! It must not have a concierge or many amenities. I left my condo for a sfh and I miss my condo so much. Easy times.

Yep, this is why you buy a condo. In terms of appreciation, location matters so much more. You're not going to see the same appreciation as a sfh but if you are located next to a metro and restaurants, grocers, etc, you will experience some.

+1 and you have to catch the market at the right time - as a seller. The first to suffer in a slowing market are condos, and they're the last to appreciate. Once condos start to fly off the market, the next phase of the market will likely be a slow down. Last to go up, first to come down.

[Anonymous]

A condo is not the right purchase for everyone. But we have been very happy in ours. Our old TH felt like a money pit—it was in the woods, so we paid monthly pest control, put out cash and time regularly for lawn and garden care that we did not enjoy, and paid HOA fees to maintain the roads and common areas. This added up to $300+ per month. We had outdoor parking and washed our cars regularly as a result. It was a little too big for us and older so there always seemed to be needed maintenance.we were so unhappy we were ready to rent but decided it made more financial sense to buy a condo (and our adviser agreed).

We moved to a smaller, newer-but-not-new condo in a large and well managed building with an underground garage, landscaping and snow removal included, water, pool and front desk concierge with emergency maintenance help included in the $500/month fee. I have more time to do what I enjoy (not yard work) and feel much happier with the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a low condo fee! It must not have a concierge or many amenities. I left my condo for a sfh and I miss my condo so much. Easy times.

Yep, this is why you buy a condo. In terms of appreciation, location matters so much more. You're not going to see the same appreciation as a sfh but if you are located next to a metro and restaurants, grocers, etc, you will experience some.

I bought a condo in SW Waterfront in 2011 for like $185K, it was nice too. Made double when I sold 5 years later b/c the Wharf was just about to begin. I believe it's been sold another time since then but it didn't make a significant jump from when I sold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

First of all I said “mid rise.”
A 2-3 story building isn’t a mid-rise. And of course you don’t need an elevator for a two story building.

But once you’re three or above, yes it makes a difference in value. It may not make financial sense for a building to add one to a three story building where there isn’t one already, but upper level units in three story condo buildings with elevators are absolutely more valuable than and easier to sell than units without them.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I don’t know. Maybe ask the poster who responded to my post saying that the biggest expense in the mid-rise condo building where we had a unit was the elevator but that an elevator is necessary in that kind of building by saying that it’s not necessary in a smaller building?

Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned a 670 SF 1BR + den (could be considered 2BR) and 1BA in a nice part of DC for around a decade before selling it several years ago. That’s what our fee was, more or less, and it was considered low. The condo was a nice mid-rise with no amenities other than a shared roof top deck that was barely furnished.

The single biggest expense in a no frills building, which nobody here has even mentioned, is the elevator. But a building has to have one or the value of the units plummet even if you’re on the first or second floor.

We bought our place in the upper 300s and sold for just over $500k. So we did fine.

Depends on the size of the building. We live in a 4 unit, 3 story building, with no elevator. The building actually did the math on installing one, but it would basically only be for the top unit (the rest were garden level, 1st or 2nd floor). And the top unit had a nice roof deck and the owners didn't feel they needed an elevator for value -- they sold a few years later and made a nice profit. The rest of us didn't want to foot the bill for an elevator we'd essentially never use.

Now, a 30 unit 4-5 story building with a dozen unites on the top floors and a shared roofdeck? Yes, you have to have an elevator. But in DC, there are a ton of super small condo buildings that are 2-3 stories and don't have elevators and I don't think it depresses the value of the units. Especially since the average condo buyer in DC is a young professional, not a retiree.

First of all I said “mid rise.”
A 2-3 story building isn’t a mid-rise. And of course you don’t need an elevator for a two story building.

But once you’re three or above, yes it makes a difference in value. It may not make financial sense for a building to add one to a three story building where there isn’t one already, but upper level units in three story condo buildings with elevators are absolutely more valuable than and easier to sell than units without them.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I don’t know. Maybe ask the poster who responded to my post saying that the biggest expense in the mid-rise condo building where we had a unit was the elevator but that an elevator is necessary in that kind of building by saying that it’s not necessary in a smaller building?

Duh.

You made a broad statement that condo buildings must have elevators in order to hold value. You didn't say "unless it's a smaller building where fewer condos are more than a couple floors up and there are fewer owners to share the cost of the elevator." So I followed up to explain that while what you said may generally be true, it does not apply to all condos.

You may think that's obvious from what you said, but someone like OP who doesn't even understand what condo fees cover or what the general costs of homeownership involve might not. Thus my comment.

Duh.

[Anonymous]

I have a townhouse-style condo, and the condo fee includes water, trash, clubhouse access, and landscaping for $305 a month. I'm fine with the fee and feel like it covers enough to justify the cost. My only utilities are electricity and cable.