Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Depends on location. In cities, maybe. In suburbs, no. Especially with condo fees.
It’s neither really. It’s a rural ski town with a small historic downtown with small dense lots and homes about 1k-3k square feet. The big new ones are expensive- like $7 million. Then there’s a ski base area that has most 1970’s-80’s buildings in low-average condition, all walk up and about 100 homes in the mountains that are 1.5-10 million.
Then about 3-5 miles out there are mixed communities with homes ranging from 1.25-10million. I’m wondering which area we should choose. Right now our budget is the condo or townhouse in the older building but if we wait a few years it opens up doors to get a small home on the lower price range a few miles out.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Depends on location. In cities, maybe. In suburbs, no. Especially with condo fees.
It’s neither really. It’s a rural ski town with a small historic downtown with small dense lots and homes about 1k-3k square feet. The big new ones are expensive- like $7 million. Then there’s a ski base area that has most 1970’s-80’s buildings in low-average condition, all walk up and about 100 homes in the mountains that are 1.5-10 million.
Then about 3-5 miles out there are mixed communities with homes ranging from 1.25-10million. I’m wondering which area we should choose. Right now our budget is the condo or townhouse in the older building but if we wait a few years it opens up doors to get a small home on the lower price range a few miles out.
Anonymous wrote:Depends on location. In cities, maybe. In suburbs, no. Especially with condo fees.
Anonymous wrote:If you're planning to retire there, does whether it will be an investment or not really matter? Would you prefer to retire to a condo or SFH? A condo is less maintenance and in the meantime could rent it out potentially easier than a SFH.