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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Huh? Seems like people who use the term "starter" in a listing are projecting onto buyers what their long term goals should be even if they're buying small right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Huh? Seems like people who use the term "starter" in a listing are projecting onto buyers what their long term goals should be even if they're buying small right now.

Again, no one said anything about long-term goals.

"A starter home or starter house is a house that is usually the first which a person or family can afford to purchase, often using a combination of savings and mortgage financing."

Yeah, 570K is a lot, but it's also a decent sized house/lot that's in a great location. I know people who'd be all over that place for their first home.

You guys need to go read the definition of the term what a "starter home" is...

[Anonymous]

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.

This X100. I do not get what drives the rampant insecurity in TP/SS. If you want to stay in smaller house good for you. I know plenty of people of who have no problem saying that they decided that they ultimately decided to stay in their starter home for various reasons and others who moved on for various reasons.

Plus its better for the area to attract as many buyers as possible. Calling attention to the option of a starter home just might attract someone who thinks the schools are really bad and the house is too small long term but it puts the idea in their head that this area might be a temporary option. They may decide to move later on for a bigger house and better schools or they may decide the extra space isn't worth the move/cost and the schools are OK.

[Anonymous]

Years ago when we were looking for our first home and focusing on more affordable rowhouses in DC and SFHs in Silver Spring, this is exactly the type of property we would have been all over. It probably would have gone for less than $250K at the time. Whether the realtor called it a starter home or not would not have mattered one bit to us, and we wouldn't have been thinking about whether we'd move 10 or 15 years later.

Bet it goes quickly regardless of how the realtor characterizes it in the listing.

[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.

Holy crap, snowflake. You are way, way too sensitive about something relatively innocuous. Chill

[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.

Snowflakes got to Snowflake!

[Anonymous]

Its absolutely not a starter home given the price and updates it needs. It was cleaned up for sale but that basement would be a lot to remodel and cannot see the plumbing, electrical or windows.

[Anonymous]

A starter home is for the newly wed or nearly dead

[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.

Agreed. This looks like a perfect example of a starter home. It's nice, affordable, in a decent area, and has potential for later equity to sell for something bigger in a few years.

What’s so affordable about a $600k house? Median home value in DC metro is $400k. In Maryland it’s $290k. And the home ownership rate is only about 60% so lots of people can’t afford to buy at all. Wealthy and entitled people are making a lot of assumptions when they say that your average young couple can buy a $600k house.

[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.

Agreed. This looks like a perfect example of a starter home. It's nice, affordable, in a decent area, and has potential for later equity to sell for something bigger in a few years.

What’s so affordable about a $600k house? Median home value in DC metro is $400k. In Maryland it’s $290k. And the home ownership rate is only about 60% so lots of people can’t afford to buy at all. Wealthy and entitled people are making a lot of assumptions when they say that your average young couple can buy a $600k house.

So what, if this house isn't being marketed to you or is beyond your budget, move on.

[Anonymous]

I assume when they say it's a "starter house" that it's in such bad shape that only the very young have enough energy to do the rehab.

[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.

Agreed. This looks like a perfect example of a starter home. It's nice, affordable, in a decent area, and has potential for later equity to sell for something bigger in a few years.

What’s so affordable about a $600k house? Median home value in DC metro is $400k. In Maryland it’s $290k. And the home ownership rate is only about 60% so lots of people can’t afford to buy at all. Wealthy and entitled people are making a lot of assumptions when they say that your average young couple can buy a $600k house.

I'm not sure what the point of this post even is.... a lot of what ifs. My what if is that a dual income couple of nearly 200K with a solid down payment of 20% is definitely affordable for 600K house.

It's the DC area, I personally think it's laughable that this house would probably go for a million in Arlington based on the land alone, but here we are in 2019....

[Anonymous]

Even for a DCUM post, I can't believe this many people even care. The DC real estate market is not normal! Anyone reading this forum should already know that.

If you picked up this house and dropped it in a city like Dallas, with a low cost of living...no one would pay more than $150k for it. And for $575k you could get a monster 5000 sqft 6bd/4ba house with a pool (in the back yard, not the living room).

If you dropped this in AU park, it would list for $799k, sell for $100k over and people would be talking about what a great opportunity it was for some family to get into the neighborhood under a million.

You cannot possibly make it through life in one piece if you're so easily offended by something this trivial. Who gives a shit what the listing agent calls this house. If it works for you and your family, buy it and give her the finger when you collect the keys. You'll live there forever so you won't ever have to worry about seeing her at an open house in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Meh ours is a starter and was 800k. A starter is a starter.

[Anonymous]

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.

the beach ball in picture 32 is enormous.