can we please, please, retire the term "starter home"????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Do you get offended at everything this easily?

[Anonymous]

A-f*ing-men. Despite the wealth (actual vs. inflated) on DCUM, not all of us are climbing the property ladder and reaping the benefits. Not did all of us buy in the past and are rolling in appreciation in equity.

- signed, someone who lives in a $200K income household and feels priced out of the DC market, where a "starter home" = some shitty 2BR condo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Yes, your house is what I'd call a starter home. We want 3-4 kids and space to grow into. It's a great home for 10 years but after that, babies become kids who become teenagers. That house isn't going to work for someone with 3 teenagers.

People have different uses for homes. You just said it yourself, you have one kid who's small, so the house is a good size for you and your family, that's great. To others who want more kids, it's not enough space at all to grow into.

This isn't "insulting". What's insulting is you projecting onto others what should and shouldn't be the ideal long-term house just because you didn't buy a bigger house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist in a medical field, I can't even begin to tell you how patriarchal and punitive medical terms are. They were coined by men in a warlike world. Think about "advanced maternal age" starting at 35, "incompetent cervix", "insult" when they mean injury, etc...

Compared to that, "starter" seems very innocuous.

AKA a lab tech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Yes, your house is what I'd call a starter home. We want 3-4 kids and space to grow into. It's a great home for 10 years but after that, babies become kids who become teenagers. That house isn't going to work for someone with 3 teenagers.

People have different uses for homes. You just said it yourself, you have one kid who's small, so the house is a good size for you and your family, that's great. To others who want more kids, it's not enough space at all to grow into.

This isn't "insulting". What's insulting is you projecting onto others what should and shouldn't be the ideal long-term house just because you didn't buy a bigger house.

wow, are you this charming in person? pp, ignore that troll. -np

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not offensive, you are just pissed that you can't afford a better house.

Just because you don't have upward mobility (or want it) doesn't mean we have to erase a commonly used phrase from our vocabulary.

Offensive would include verbiage that disparages a protected class. You are just slightly less rich than someone else, that situation does not put you in a protected class, its just kind of unfortunate for you.

Hint: laws are not ethics.

Besides which, the selling point that a home is a great starter home term is clearly designed to attract people who have greater expected lifetime incomes. I.e. people who a group which is overwhelmingly white. I'd also be willing to bet that the term is used primarily in neighborhoods that are either majority-white or rapidly gentrifying. So even if this might not be an open and shut legal case, it does seem to violate the spirit of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Yes, your house is what I'd call a starter home. We want 3-4 kids and space to grow into. It's a great home for 10 years but after that, babies become kids who become teenagers. That house isn't going to work for someone with 3 teenagers.

People have different uses for homes. You just said it yourself, you have one kid who's small, so the house is a good size for you and your family, that's great. To others who want more kids, it's not enough space at all to grow into.

This isn't "insulting". What's insulting is you projecting onto others what should and shouldn't be the ideal long-term house just because you didn't buy a bigger house.

As someone with teenagers, they need far less space than babies and toddlers.

Teenagers are busy. My kids have school, activities, and work. They use their rooms to sleep and store clothes. They don't need a play room, a swing, bouncy seat, toy box, etc.

They need time, not space for stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Yes, your house is what I'd call a starter home. We want 3-4 kids and space to grow into. It's a great home for 10 years but after that, babies become kids who become teenagers. That house isn't going to work for someone with 3 teenagers.

People have different uses for homes. You just said it yourself, you have one kid who's small, so the house is a good size for you and your family, that's great. To others who want more kids, it's not enough space at all to grow into.

This isn't "insulting". What's insulting is you projecting onto others what should and shouldn't be the ideal long-term house just because you didn't buy a bigger house.

Sure it will. For a normal reasonable person who doesn’t insist that every kid have their own bedroom and individual space to hang out. I live in a house that size and the previous owners raised SIX kids there. And not only an unfinished basement, but 1/2 basement and 1/2 crawl space.

Saying things like “that won’t work” just makes me laugh. It sure will. But just not for someone with your elite space wants and needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not offensive, you are just pissed that you can't afford a better house.

Just because you don't have upward mobility (or want it) doesn't mean we have to erase a commonly used phrase from our vocabulary.

Offensive would include verbiage that disparages a protected class. You are just slightly less rich than someone else, that situation does not put you in a protected class, its just kind of unfortunate for you.

Hint: laws are not ethics.

Besides which, the selling point that a home is a great starter home term is clearly designed to attract people who have greater expected lifetime incomes. I.e. people who a group which is overwhelmingly white. I'd also be willing to bet that the term is used primarily in neighborhoods that are either majority-white or rapidly gentrifying. So even if this might not be an open and shut legal case, it does seem to violate the spirit of the law.

You again? Stop pretending to know anything about the Fair Housing Act.

Free speech is a beautiful thing. If a realtor knows enough about her market to conclude that calling a home a "starter home" will appeal to a broader pool of potential buyers, who are you to get bent out of shape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist in a medical field, I can't even begin to tell you how patriarchal and punitive medical terms are. They were coined by men in a warlike world. Think about "advanced maternal age" starting at 35, "incompetent cervix", "insult" when they mean injury, etc...

Compared to that, "starter" seems very innocuous.

AKA a lab tech?

No - research scientist, although lab techs probably know more than you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not offensive, you are just pissed that you can't afford a better house.

Just because you don't have upward mobility (or want it) doesn't mean we have to erase a commonly used phrase from our vocabulary.

Offensive would include verbiage that disparages a protected class. You are just slightly less rich than someone else, that situation does not put you in a protected class, its just kind of unfortunate for you.

Hint: laws are not ethics.

Besides which, the selling point that a home is a great starter home term is clearly designed to attract people who have greater expected lifetime incomes. I.e. people who a group which is overwhelmingly white. I'd also be willing to bet that the term is used primarily in neighborhoods that are either majority-white or rapidly gentrifying. So even if this might not be an open and shut legal case, it does seem to violate the spirit of the law.

You again? Stop pretending to know anything about the Fair Housing Act.

Free speech is a beautiful thing. If a realtor knows enough about her market to conclude that calling a home a "starter home" will appeal to a broader pool of potential buyers, who are you to get bent out of shape?

Hint: laws are still not ethics. It's unethical to market in a way that favors a narrower pool of potential buyers (which is what marketing as a starter home does) if that group is de facto exclusive of historically disadvantaged groups. Not so hard to understand, really

I'm not claiming to be an expert on Fair Housing Act enforcement; I support your right to free speech as much as my own. And I don't mind telling anyone who does this that they are behaving unethically. Sorry if you don't like hearing the criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not offensive, you are just pissed that you can't afford a better house.

Just because you don't have upward mobility (or want it) doesn't mean we have to erase a commonly used phrase from our vocabulary.

Offensive would include verbiage that disparages a protected class. You are just slightly less rich than someone else, that situation does not put you in a protected class, its just kind of unfortunate for you.

Hint: laws are not ethics.

Besides which, the selling point that a home is a great starter home term is clearly designed to attract people who have greater expected lifetime incomes. I.e. people who a group which is overwhelmingly white. I'd also be willing to bet that the term is used primarily in neighborhoods that are either majority-white or rapidly gentrifying. So even if this might not be an open and shut legal case, it does seem to violate the spirit of the law.

You again? Stop pretending to know anything about the Fair Housing Act.

Free speech is a beautiful thing. If a realtor knows enough about her market to conclude that calling a home a "starter home" will appeal to a broader pool of potential buyers, who are you to get bent out of shape?

Hint: laws are still not ethics. It's unethical to market in a way that favors a narrower pool of potential buyers (which is what marketing as a starter home does) if that group is de facto exclusive of historically disadvantaged groups. Not so hard to understand, really

I'm not claiming to be an expert on Fair Housing Act enforcement; I support your right to free speech as much as my own. And I don't mind telling anyone who does this that they are behaving unethically. Sorry if you don't like hearing the criticism.

I think your depth when it comes to ethics is as shallow as your depth when it comes to law.

Buyers who come from "historically disadvantaged groups" often aspire to own multiple properties over their lifetimes.

In general, it is not ethical to impose one's sensibilities on others in ways that curtail their right to speak freely. There are exceptions, of course, but this by no means rises to the level of hate speech. Sorry if you don't like hearing that others don't have to change their behavior or language every time you decide you're offended.

[Anonymous]

I went to an open house this weekend and told the selling agent it was a nice starter home. She looked appalled lol. House was $599 BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist in a medical field, I can't even begin to tell you how patriarchal and punitive medical terms are. They were coined by men in a warlike world. Think about "advanced maternal age" starting at 35, "incompetent cervix", "insult" when they mean injury, etc...

Compared to that, "starter" seems very innocuous.

AKA a lab tech?

No - research scientist, although lab techs probably know more than you

Researching what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this one, for example. Described as a starter home in the listing:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/632-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10953314

Maybe the listing agent wants to appeal to buyers who'd prefer some larger with more than one bathroom, but calling it a "starter" at $575,000 is insulting. I hate the idea that, even if it's a financial reach to spend that much, we should see at as a compromise relative to a house that costs even more.

I don't get it. What's so bad about calling it a starter home? It's small and for the price, something that a younger couple can both afford and make into a home for a few years until they have kids that are older than 10.

The layout is actually pretty good considering the sq ft and they have an entire unfinished basement just waiting to be finished.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable starter home to me. It's not a forever home imo.

It's insulting because it implies that no one would live in it for the long term. You DO understand that one person's "starter home" is another person's "forever home," right? To say it is a "starter" is to imply it isn't good enough (and by extension the people who buy it aren't good enough) as it is. But it is a house, a home, that people may live in for a little while or for the rest of their lives. Call it a small house, a cozy house, a two bedroom house.

I live in a house other people call "a starter house" - two bed, two bath, 1300 sq ft. I am 46, married, with a kid. We will live in this house until we downsize when the kid grows up. Do you call my house a starter house? Why? It wasn't my first house, so not my starter, and I never moved on from it. Its insulting to call any house a starter house. Its just a house.

Yes, your house is what I'd call a starter home. We want 3-4 kids and space to grow into. It's a great home for 10 years but after that, babies become kids who become teenagers. That house isn't going to work for someone with 3 teenagers.

People have different uses for homes. You just said it yourself, you have one kid who's small, so the house is a good size for you and your family, that's great. To others who want more kids, it's not enough space at all to grow into.

This isn't "insulting". What's insulting is you projecting onto others what should and shouldn't be the ideal long-term house just because you didn't buy a bigger house.

Sure it will. For a normal reasonable person who doesn’t insist that every kid have their own bedroom and individual space to hang out. I live in a house that size and the previous owners raised SIX kids there. And not only an unfinished basement, but 1/2 basement and 1/2 crawl space.

Saying things like “that won’t work” just makes me laugh. It sure will. But just not for someone with your elite space wants and needs.

LOL I'm far from elite. I grew up in a house smaller than that. I can live in that house forever, myself, as-is forever if I didn't want kids. Just saying, why knock down other's phrases of "first starter home" because you're "insulted"?

All I'm saying is, for a young couple making around 90K each and saved a good down payment, yes, that house is affordable and a good home for a first time homebuyer... I mean....you realize what a "Starter home" even means, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starter_home

You're the only one sad because people may or may not want to live in a house that size forever, to each their own. I like the house. It could be a forever home, or it could be a starter home for a younger couple. To each their own, just find it funny that it insults you for some reason because you seem insecure by the term....