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

[Anonymous]

Wait, you really care what the selling agent says about a house? And you let that affect you? Enough that the words actually hurt your feelings?
Be a grownup and make your own decisions about the house. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. A starter home is just that...a first home purchase for a buyer. The ad itself doesn't even say anything about how long the buyer has to live there. They could live there for 5 years, it could be their forever home, or who knows, maybe the buyer is an investor and will turn it into a rental. Not sure why the OP is so bothered by the "starter home" term, otherwise, since no one is putting a timeline on how long they have to live there.

OP probably gets triggered when they see the FHA First-time Homebuyer program.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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. [/quote]

My word, are you ever dumb!

[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.

They are nothing compared to my last "geriatric pregnancy"! OMG I was so shocked.

[Anonymous]

DC houses a lot of mediocre legacy govt people. / Other mid range people . The new blood is higher income and consider 550k a starter home and size even 10 years a go.

[Anonymous]

That is cheap.
Try Toronto. You have it too easy. DC is cheap.

[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.

If a 1000 square foot house in silver spring is your long term goal, you have serious self esteem issues.


Those of us without them will continue to aim high

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was created by the real estate industry to convince people to keep buying and selling.

+1.

+2.the phrase is to keep hope alive for a larger place eventually.

It’s a cute house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is cheap.
Try Toronto. You have it too easy. DC is cheap.

No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Our 700K house was referred to as a "starter home" because it was our first home purchase. We assured the realtor it was our forever home purchase. We were 34. But that's the way they talk. Also, we are only the second owners (first owners passed it to second generation), and it was built in the 1920s. So it was never anyone's 'starter' home.

[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.

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.

This is absolutely true. My oldest just started high school and he has finally "grown into" his tiny bedroom. It was always too small, now it is like a nice sized dorm room with just the right amount of stuff (aka almost nothing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP, let's retire this term.

My Aunt called our new home a "great starter home".

It was $800K. And we are in our late 30s with 2 kids so not exactly just starting out.

It was beyond insulting considering we have saved forever for this home and plan on living in it for the next 20+ years!

Wow, I’d be insulted too (we also bought an 800K house in our late 30s with two kids. Your aunt sounds like my MIL who always called our three BR, 2000sf townhouse an “apartment” simply because we were renting.

[Anonymous]

"Starter home" is not insulting.

Starter home is also a relative term and not an absolute term. What is a starter home for some families can easily be a forever home for other families. Just because someone calls a home a starter home does not mean that it is a starter home for everyone. If you are a family with one bank teller and one fireman, you are not going to have the same criteria for houses as a family that has a Big Law lawyer and a Corporate Executive. A family with two public school teachers is not going to have the same basis as a family with one hospital staff doctor and one engineer. Family finances, the desired size of family, family home preferences and desired location all factor into what would be a starter home vs a forever home. If you live in the city vs living in the suburbs or exurbs, will have a big impact on what is considered a starter home. And some people just like smaller places and place a premium on "charm" whereas others place a premium on "size" and others place a premium on the age of the home (whether wanting an older home or a newer home).

The realtor made a generalization. One that doesn't apply to you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to many of the buyers that she normally works with or who tend to target the neighborhood she is listing. Stop taking insult and just realize that you don't fit her generalization and move on.

[Anonymous]

Starter home = first house for first time homebuyers.

That offends people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is cheap.
Try Toronto. You have it too easy. DC is cheap.

Toronto is painfully expensive. Sucks. I wanted to move there after college (in Western NY) but could not afford it!