Second home 2 hours v 3 hours

[Anonymous]

Two hours is our limit (we bought a house on the water 1:45ish away). It allows us to wait for Beltway traffic to clear out in the evening and still get there at a reasonable hour (by 10).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a different approach, buying an expensive home locally with all the amenities I want, and just going elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery. I can't imagine spending hours each way to go to a second home, paying for maintenance and insurance on it, tying money up in a more vulnerable RE market as are rural and vacation area, and being always tied to a specific location. You're signing up for financial and administrative commitments, and for a lack of flexibility. But, each to their own.

LOL. If you don't buy "an expensive home locally" then you can buy another that isn't local and together they can provide "all the amenities I want" and you can still "go elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery." What this thread is all about is how many "hours each way" to do this makes sense.

Because two lower end homes instead of one high end property with all your desired amenities also avoids all the financial and management costs associated with keeping a second house, and many people consider hours driving to and from a second home to be unproductive. Time in a really nice primary property is not wasted, time on the road going back and forth is. Not to mention the opportunity costs - with one home and the money you save by not paying for insurance and maintenance and taxes on a second one, you can vacation wherever you like whenever you want, without feeling that you should be using that same old second home because you're paying to keep it.

But, if paying and commuting to a second home floats your boat, more power to you.

There was another recent big thread about this in which the OP was deciding whether to upgrade to a nicer principal residence or to use that money to buy a vacation home instead. We did the latter and have been very happy, plus now the two homes are worth about the same — $1.2ish — even though we bought in a close in DC suburb for $675K 20 years ago and bought the vacation home 12 years ago for $450K. The biggest thing for us is that we had kids who weren’t involved in a bunch of weekend activities and one of them has special needs that makes traveling anywhere else really difficult and made a beach house worth it. And not that you should make major investment decisions on a once in a hundred years fluke but it was amazing during Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a different approach, buying an expensive home locally with all the amenities I want, and just going elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery. I can't imagine spending hours each way to go to a second home, paying for maintenance and insurance on it, tying money up in a more vulnerable RE market as are rural and vacation area, and being always tied to a specific location. You're signing up for financial and administrative commitments, and for a lack of flexibility. But, each to their own.

LOL. If you don't buy "an expensive home locally" then you can buy another that isn't local and together they can provide "all the amenities I want" and you can still "go elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery." What this thread is all about is how many "hours each way" to do this makes sense.

Because two lower end homes instead of one high end property with all your desired amenities also avoids all the financial and management costs associated with keeping a second house, and many people consider hours driving to and from a second home to be unproductive. Time in a really nice primary property is not wasted, time on the road going back and forth is. Not to mention the opportunity costs - with one home and the money you save by not paying for insurance and maintenance and taxes on a second one, you can vacation wherever you like whenever you want, without feeling that you should be using that same old second home because you're paying to keep it.

But, if paying and commuting to a second home floats your boat, more power to you.

I know I shouldn't waste my time debating this silly issue with you. But what the hell, I will . . .

First, it all depends on one's definition of "expensive" versus "lower end," which is entirely location specific. Our city house is worth $2 million and our country $1 million -- but our country house is "high end" regardless of where you might find it and is definitely "expensive" for the local area. Our city house is hardly "lower end," but those who know DC wouldn't consider it "expensive" either. It's a comfortable place in a superb location.

Which brings me to your definition of "all the nice amenities." Clearly it's different than mine. To me, the "nice amenities" of a house is more than things like a big kitchen with high end appliances -- it's WHERE the house is located and the "amenities" that surround it. From that standpoint, it's impossible to buy a single house with "all the nice amenities" when you want amenities that both the country and the city offer. We didn't buy a second home to spend our time just sitting in it . . .

Yes, every time anyone is on the road you are "wasting time." That's precisely why we limited our search for a second home to less than two hours away. Also, we don't work so we don't spend a lot of time driving anywhere else.

Finally, what you call "opportunity costs." Again, yes -- if you're not living below your means this is something you need to worry about. But that isn't us. Having to pay for "insurance and maintenance and taxes" on two places isn't a burden, and we can do that and still afford to -- and do -- travel extensively to other places regardless because we're not overextended. We're not even close to house poor.

+1 Lots of false dichotomies on here.

[Anonymous]

I have friends with a second home a mile from their house. It’s a waterfront cottage where their boat is kept. They use it to WFH, as a weekend getaway and for out of town guests. It’s even in their same school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a different approach, buying an expensive home locally with all the amenities I want, and just going elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery. I can't imagine spending hours each way to go to a second home, paying for maintenance and insurance on it, tying money up in a more vulnerable RE market as are rural and vacation area, and being always tied to a specific location. You're signing up for financial and administrative commitments, and for a lack of flexibility. But, each to their own.

LOL. If you don't buy "an expensive home locally" then you can buy another that isn't local and together they can provide "all the amenities I want" and you can still "go elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery." What this thread is all about is how many "hours each way" to do this makes sense.

Because two lower end homes instead of one high end property with all your desired amenities also avoids all the financial and management costs associated with keeping a second house, and many people consider hours driving to and from a second home to be unproductive. Time in a really nice primary property is not wasted, time on the road going back and forth is. Not to mention the opportunity costs - with one home and the money you save by not paying for insurance and maintenance and taxes on a second one, you can vacation wherever you like whenever you want, without feeling that you should be using that same old second home because you're paying to keep it.

But, if paying and commuting to a second home floats your boat, more power to you.

I know I shouldn't waste my time debating this silly issue with you. But what the hell, I will . . .

First, it all depends on one's definition of "expensive" versus "lower end," which is entirely location specific. Our city house is worth $2 million and our country $1 million -- but our country house is "high end" regardless of where you might find it and is definitely "expensive" for the local area. Our city house is hardly "lower end," but those who know DC wouldn't consider it "expensive" either. It's a comfortable place in a superb location.

Which brings me to your definition of "all the nice amenities." Clearly it's different than mine. To me, the "nice amenities" of a house is more than things like a big kitchen with high end appliances -- it's WHERE the house is located and the "amenities" that surround it. From that standpoint, it's impossible to buy a single house with "all the nice amenities" when you want amenities that both the country and the city offer. We didn't buy a second home to spend our time just sitting in it . . .

Yes, every time anyone is on the road you are "wasting time." That's precisely why we limited our search for a second home to less than two hours away. Also, we don't work so we don't spend a lot of time driving anywhere else.

Finally, what you call "opportunity costs." Again, yes -- if you're not living below your means this is something you need to worry about. But that isn't us. Having to pay for "insurance and maintenance and taxes" on two places isn't a burden, and we can do that and still afford to -- and do -- travel extensively to other places regardless because we're not overextended. We're not even close to house poor.

DP…
Opportunity cost exists no matter how much money you have. The money you are spending on two houses could be used on something else. It’s also an inefficient allocation as you can only be in one spot at one time but you’re spending money on two.

We had 2 houses at one point. But during Covid we moved to our “second” home and sold our primary.

1. Opportunity cost of both the annual opex but also the equity
2. Mental load factor of maintaining 2 properties - coordinating cleaning, landscaping, repairs, bills.

We could “easily” afford it and our second home was more expensive than our former primary home by a long shot.

I will only have 2 homes again if I can afford a personal assistant as well. Or, homes are used seasonally where I can shut one down and start the other up so that I don’t have ongoing hassle at 2 different locations.

Perhaps you have so much money you have household staff maintaining one or both properties. Or even someone handling your schedule and coordination.

If you don’t, you can’t say that two houses don’t come at a significant time/bandwidth cost, even if you’re willing to overlook the dollar cost and opportunity cost that accompanies it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have friends with a second home a mile from their house. It’s a waterfront cottage where their boat is kept. They use it to WFH, as a weekend getaway and for out of town guests. It’s even in their same school district.

Not quite this but an old ex had a beach house on CT shore that they could still commute from (same commute time as from “FT” house). Was such a lifestyle hack for Memorial Day - early October. Wish we had something like that for DC - Annapolis is probably the closest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a different approach, buying an expensive home locally with all the amenities I want, and just going elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery. I can't imagine spending hours each way to go to a second home, paying for maintenance and insurance on it, tying money up in a more vulnerable RE market as are rural and vacation area, and being always tied to a specific location. You're signing up for financial and administrative commitments, and for a lack of flexibility. But, each to their own.

LOL. If you don't buy "an expensive home locally" then you can buy another that isn't local and together they can provide "all the amenities I want" and you can still "go elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery." What this thread is all about is how many "hours each way" to do this makes sense.

Because two lower end homes instead of one high end property with all your desired amenities also avoids all the financial and management costs associated with keeping a second house, and many people consider hours driving to and from a second home to be unproductive. Time in a really nice primary property is not wasted, time on the road going back and forth is. Not to mention the opportunity costs - with one home and the money you save by not paying for insurance and maintenance and taxes on a second one, you can vacation wherever you like whenever you want, without feeling that you should be using that same old second home because you're paying to keep it.

But, if paying and commuting to a second home floats your boat, more power to you.

I know I shouldn't waste my time debating this silly issue with you. But what the hell, I will . . .

First, it all depends on one's definition of "expensive" versus "lower end," which is entirely location specific. Our city house is worth $2 million and our country $1 million -- but our country house is "high end" regardless of where you might find it and is definitely "expensive" for the local area. Our city house is hardly "lower end," but those who know DC wouldn't consider it "expensive" either. It's a comfortable place in a superb location.

Which brings me to your definition of "all the nice amenities." Clearly it's different than mine. To me, the "nice amenities" of a house is more than things like a big kitchen with high end appliances -- it's WHERE the house is located and the "amenities" that surround it. From that standpoint, it's impossible to buy a single house with "all the nice amenities" when you want amenities that both the country and the city offer. We didn't buy a second home to spend our time just sitting in it . . .

Yes, every time anyone is on the road you are "wasting time." That's precisely why we limited our search for a second home to less than two hours away. Also, we don't work so we don't spend a lot of time driving anywhere else.

Finally, what you call "opportunity costs." Again, yes -- if you're not living below your means this is something you need to worry about. But that isn't us. Having to pay for "insurance and maintenance and taxes" on two places isn't a burden, and we can do that and still afford to -- and do -- travel extensively to other places regardless because we're not overextended. We're not even close to house poor.

DP…
Opportunity cost exists no matter how much money you have. The money you are spending on two houses could be used on something else. It’s also an inefficient allocation as you can only be in one spot at one time but you’re spending money on two.

We had 2 houses at one point. But during Covid we moved to our “second” home and sold our primary.

1. Opportunity cost of both the annual opex but also the equity
2. Mental load factor of maintaining 2 properties - coordinating cleaning, landscaping, repairs, bills.

We could “easily” afford it and our second home was more expensive than our former primary home by a long shot.

I will only have 2 homes again if I can afford a personal assistant as well. Or, homes are used seasonally where I can shut one down and start the other up so that I don’t have ongoing hassle at 2 different locations.

Perhaps you have so much money you have household staff maintaining one or both properties. Or even someone handling your schedule and coordination.

If you don’t, you can’t say that two houses don’t come at a significant time/bandwidth cost, even if you’re willing to overlook the dollar cost and opportunity cost that accompanies it.

You're nitpicking to be contrarian.

If we had one larger and more expensive home, insurance on that home and taxes on that home would be higher than either of these expenses are on either of our current homes individually. Would they be higher than our current two homes combined? Probably not. But c'mon. That's like saying since it's more cost effective and efficient to cook dinner instead of eating out we should never eat out. We don't live that way and don't have to.

It's also untrue that we can only be in one house at one time. There's more than one of us, neither one of us works as I said, and we're not joined at the hip 24/7. We also open the country house to family and friends -- adult children, etc. -- and it's often occupied even when we're not there. It's also not very hard to coordinate maintenance etc when the house is less than two hours away, right?

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, in fact -- how far away should the second home be to not be a hassle? We've actually owned second homes that were further away, including seasonal ones, and they WERE a hassle. This one isn't.

[Anonymous]

We bought a place at the beach during the early part of Covid when interest rates were very low and before the real run up in prices. It’s exactly 3 hours without traffic. Yes I wish it was closer but we are very much beach people. I could not get excited about a house on a lake or river. I like beach towns and all the things to do. We can walk to a lot of things including the beach. What makes it work is that my spouse works remotely and I am very part time and remote in the summer. Spouse is out there now to attend an event, and has off today so it works out. I will meet them there with the kids this weekend and stay through Monday evening. We go back and forth a lot until mid July then will spend a few weeks there before school starts.

We could get a bigger nicer home here if we didn’t have the beach house but what is the point… this area kind of sucks. I’d rather be able to get out of here and go somewhere with a more laid back lifestyle and the ocean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We bought a place at the beach during the early part of Covid when interest rates were very low and before the real run up in prices. It’s exactly 3 hours without traffic. Yes I wish it was closer but we are very much beach people. I could not get excited about a house on a lake or river. I like beach towns and all the things to do. We can walk to a lot of things including the beach. What makes it work is that my spouse works remotely and I am very part time and remote in the summer. Spouse is out there now to attend an event, and has off today so it works out. I will meet them there with the kids this weekend and stay through Monday evening. We go back and forth a lot until mid July then will spend a few weeks there before school starts.

We could get a bigger nicer home here if we didn’t have the beach house but what is the point… this area kind of sucks. I’d rather be able to get out of here and go somewhere with a more laid back lifestyle and the ocean.

I assume you’re in the DMV? What about the winter? That to me is the drawback of having a beach house in this area. Sure, the occasional weekend there in the middle of the winter is fine, but it can’t be a regular thing. Most places are closed, 90 percent of the houses are empty, the weather is cold and windy, no walking on the beach etc., and the local folks are generally either old or MAGA or both. Not that there’s anything wrong with being old . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From DC there are two centers of gravity for high end magazine quality weekend houses and quaint towns. We don’t really have a high end ocean front area, though Lewes maybe is the closest thing.

The two are Virginia hunt country inside 90 minutes and Maryland Eastern shore inside 90 minutes. That’s where the premium properties are.

As you get outside 90 minutes the desirability and prices go down. This tells me that 90 minutes or less is easy. As you get further it gets harder. Going west, 3 hours has you at places like Lost River or Shenandoah Valley… lovely area but much lower cost. If Lost River were within 90 minutes I expect it would be much pricier. Locations in the Valley are lower priced than their counterparts to the east of the blue ridge… Even Orange and Keswick east of the blue ridge are lower priced than Middleburg.

So it boils down to what you can afford… the travel time is real and people are willing to pay a lot to shorten the distance and that should tell you something as you think of more vs less time to get to the property.

That's not accurate. Bethany, Lewes, and Rehoboth are generally more desirable second home locations than some that you mentioned. There's limited interest in homes in hunting and fishing rural areas. There was a spike during the pandemic but that demand has waned.

The Delaware beach fan club just will never acknowledge that they’re not in a high end destination for 2nd homes - they’re the equivalent of the upper segment of the middle tier of NJ shore.. maybe they get up to being nearly like Stone Harbor...

You’ve got GIC, certain eastern shore enclaves, and VA horse country. Those are renowned destinations that attract part time residents from an expansive area. The only people buying in Rebobeth are from Philly, Baltimore, and DC.

When was the last time you priced real estate in Stone Harbor? Prices there are well above MD/DE.

Financially, DE makes much more sense than NJ but I will give you Stone Harbor as my favorite spot on the eastern seaboard. If money were no issue, I would buy there in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

For me, 2.5 hours is the maximum. I want to go every weekend (when possible), and any drive longer than that is too much for me for weekends, unless it's a long weekend. During COVID I occasionally made day trips to and from, and 2.5 was not ideal but doable. I have friends that are 3.5 hours away and they do it every weekend. I've tried their route and it confirmed my opinion that 2.5 is my max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not gonna lie -- we would have preferred a house on the beach, sure, but the hassle involved just wasn't worth it to us. The closest beaches to the DMV are just too far and difficult to get to for a carefree summer weekend, and outside of the summer season they're dead and you can't swim anyway.

We ended up looking west, and landed on a place that we love. On a bad day it's just under 2 hours; most of the time barely more than 90 minutes. Saving an hour to 90 minutes each way is a game changer.

That's great that you found a place that you love. But I never understand when people just feel like they want a vacation home without a strong desire for a specific type of location, such as the beach or mountains.

Because in our case it's not a "vacation" home. It's a second home outside of the city. We "vacation" elsewhere. We "live" in our first and second homes.

Not that complicated.

I think we are still all confused, but I guess you need to name the city.

I suppose I understand a one BR in NYC and then a house in Scarsdale.

Outside of NYC, it’s hard to understand doing the equivalent in any other city…maybe Chicago but the nice suburbs are much closer in for Chicago.

This is a DMV centered website. Also, in my first post, I said that the closest beaches to the DMV were a hassle to get to. So it should be pretty clear what city I'm talking about.

I said we're 90 minutes to 2 hours tops west of the city. That far out of DC is a whole new world. Our second home is not in the suburbs. It's in a rural area just outside of a charming small town with plenty of amenities.

This is why it's frustrating sometimes when non-DMV folks take over this website. You don't really understand our geography.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We bought our second home on the bay at right by Solomons and love it. It’s 1.5 hrs away, Solomons is cute, we love the sea and have a dick, boat, and view.

Solomons is lovely. I love the lighthouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two hours is our limit (we bought a house on the water 1:45ish away). It allows us to wait for Beltway traffic to clear out in the evening and still get there at a reasonable hour (by 10).

+1. Over 2 hours just seems so much longer to me than 1:45 to 2. Feels more doable for us and the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought a place at the beach during the early part of Covid when interest rates were very low and before the real run up in prices. It’s exactly 3 hours without traffic. Yes I wish it was closer but we are very much beach people. I could not get excited about a house on a lake or river. I like beach towns and all the things to do. We can walk to a lot of things including the beach. What makes it work is that my spouse works remotely and I am very part time and remote in the summer. Spouse is out there now to attend an event, and has off today so it works out. I will meet them there with the kids this weekend and stay through Monday evening. We go back and forth a lot until mid July then will spend a few weeks there before school starts.

We could get a bigger nicer home here if we didn’t have the beach house but what is the point… this area kind of sucks. I’d rather be able to get out of here and go somewhere with a more laid back lifestyle and the ocean.

I assume you’re in the DMV? What about the winter? That to me is the drawback of having a beach house in this area. Sure, the occasional weekend there in the middle of the winter is fine, but it can’t be a regular thing. Most places are closed, 90 percent of the houses are empty, the weather is cold and windy, no walking on the beach etc., and the local folks are generally either old or MAGA or both. Not that there’s anything wrong with being old . . .

We go to Rehoboth regularly year round and the vast majority of restaurants are still open. And if there’s a MAGA crowd, there is also very much the opposite end of the political spectrum.