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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

100% agree. I believe in this case they make the designation when you have a 1 bathroom situation which probably won't work for larger families. But still you are right.

[Anonymous]

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.

100% agree. I believe in this case they make the designation when you have a 1 bathroom situation which probably won't work for larger families. But still you are right.

Well FWIW monetary value is relative but number of rooms/baths are absolutes...My brother's (early to mid 30s) first home purchase was exactly that price range and exactly that number of rooms/baths in Takoma Park. For him, with his and his spouse's income, they could afford and would consider it a "starter home".

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Around here a starter home is a studio/1 bedroom condo in the city. After that, we are staying here forever because I'm already priced out of my own neighborhood that where I have lived for 5 years.

[Anonymous]

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

+1.

[Anonymous]

One in my neighborhood was listed as a starter home and I commented to other people - wouldn’t that offend people who want this to be their forever home?? I was surprised. But it sold and the new owners are happy.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

Agree. It's not a starter home if you are single, or DINKs, or empty nesters, or a family of however many who can share a bathroom. I grew up in a family of four sharing a bathroom and it was fine; my parents have lived in their "starter home" 40+ years. I also think that in general, you shouldn't buy a place you can't stay in indefinitely ... Not that people can't upgrade but if you really want two bathrooms don't buy this house.

I like this one, it's cute.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Using the term is a calculated risk by an agent that it will help convince potential buyers that a property that may not be their “dream” or “forever” home nevertheless is a solid investment.

You could always tell the agent you’re offended, and he or she might reconsider. No one made you the language police, so the most you really can do is say it seems tone-deaf.

[Anonymous]

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.