Starter house vs lifetime house

the_syco

Malari wrote: »

Presumably this "starter" home thing only applies to people planning one or more children? Or a few large dogs?

The "starter" home applies to people who want a large house, but can only afford a small one now.

cruizer101

LirW wrote: »

My granny has a 400 sqm house where she now lives alone. The upkeep of something like this is ridiculous. When we were looking I said I don't want more than 120 max, would prefer 100, not too interested in a big garden either.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you mean your granny has a 4000 house? And you want a 1000 one? 1000 is very small in fairness and 4000 is indeed huge and hard to maintain. I think 2500 is a good size house. Depends on how many kids etc and if someone wants to work from home.

Hollister11 wrote: »

He said sqm not sqft

Deleted User wrote: »

And what?

A 1000 sqm is not very small, it mansion size

draiochtanois

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes the contents I would want won't fit in a small house. Not enough rooms, not enough space in the rooms that are there, not enough storage etc etc etc.

Good design might make it appear bigger but its an illusion and would a big compromise for me, of course others are happy in a small house and I've no problem with that.

messy tessy

draiochtanois wrote: »

Feeling like your living in a shoebox has more to do with the contents than the size of the house.

If this is ever open again I'd recommend a visit http://www.openhousecork.ie/narrow-house/

At 45sgm / 485 sq ft it doesn't seem cramped at all because it's designed so well.

Is there anywhere to see more photos of it?
I have asked Google!

Some really interesting projects/ results on that channel 4 show Amazing Spaces, good layout is everything!

OMD

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

45sqm over 3 floors is tiny. I don't care how well designed it is.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

A 1000 sqm is not very small, it mansion size

im talking in sqft so 1000 is small.

1000 sqm is mansion size I agree!

Samuel T. Cogley

1000sq ft in a capital city isn't small. I'm in a 100sqm house (just shy of 1100sqft) and I've 4 beds a decent kitchen diner and a decent livingroom and 1.5 baths.

Edit: Sorry as for the OP if you're going into a 'starter home' and planning to delay the family until after significant equity is built up and you've moved fine, if not it's dodgey in Ireland because of the boom/bust cycle we seem trapped in.

catrionanic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

im talking in sqft so 1000 is small.

1000 sqm is mansion size I agree!

My house is 500 sqft! It is small but we have two bedrooms, one for us and one for the baby and it's doing us okay. We are in Dublin and a 10 min walk to Stephens green

1000 sqft can't be THAT small

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

im talking in sqft so 1000 is small.

1000 sqm is mansion size I agree!

It's not small, how many people are going to live in the house?

One thing that never appealed to me was that with a big house you'd be more inclined to stay there where as with a smaller house I think you're more likely to get out more which I prefer.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

It's not small, how many people are going to live in the house?

One thing that never appealed to me was that with a big house you'd be more inclined to stay there where as with a smaller house I think you're more likely to get out more which I prefer.

Compared to where I live it would be seen as small. I know houses are more expensive in cities but that still doesn't mean it's small in one part or the country and bigger somewhere else...it's the same size. Much easier to clean and furnish smaller houses though so there are pros and cons. It saved us on wanting to always be away though as we prefer our house to most hotels we stay in and love spending time at home - that's a plus in my book.

TheChizler

As I see it I don't planning on having more than 1 kid in 10 years, but could see myself having 3 or 4 5 years after that. Why take a 4 bed off the market now just for 2 people when a large family could be in need of it?

The_Conductor

catrionanic wrote: »

My house is 500 sqft! It is small but we have two bedrooms, one for us and one for the baby and it's doing us okay. We are in Dublin and a 10 min walk to Stephens green

1000 sqft can't be THAT small

I've 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms- and a whole lot of missing space in halls/passages- and I'm under 1000 square feet.

Yes- the lack of storage- is an issue- but its not a small townhouse- its really quite reasonable in size.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry but 1000sq ft simply isn't small especially when it's generally a standard terraced or semi D with a garden and loft for storage not included in the sq ft livable space.

Where I'm from that's small I get that's not small for people living in the city!

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Where I'm from that's small I get that's not small for people living in the city!

I can't think of anywhere it's small tbh. Even the sprawling bungalows of the sticks wouldn't be more then 1500sq ft on average. Yes there are larger houses out there but 1500-2000sq ft is a large house. In Dublin given the right area 1800-2500sq ft is easily mansion and €2million plus territory.

Examples

Clare: fecking huge place but come into Ennis and it get's more sensible. Meanwhile 13million off this bargain which I will scientifically guestimate is around 2200 sqft.

Meh okay 3000sqft here so I'll concede 1000sqft as middling.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I can't think of anywhere it's small tbh. Even the sprawling bungalows of the sticks wouldn't be more then 1500sq ft on average. Yes there are larger houses out there but 1500-2000sq ft is a large house. In Dublin given the right area 1800-2500sq ft is easily mansion and €2million plus territory.

Examples

Clare: fecking huge place but come into Ennis and it get's more sensible. Meanwhile 13million off this bargain which I will scientifically guestimate is around 2200 sqft.

Meh okay 3000sqft here so I'll concede 1000sqft as middling.

LIke i said I'm not from dublin so our house and friends houses are all 2000-3000 and would be the norm. Different location though.

beauf

LirW wrote: »

Starter home is a term that was thrown around in the boom a lot. People would buy houses with the prospective view of selling up in a few years time to move to the forever home. Instead of the latter they got negative equity or lost their 'starter home'.
I know a couple that bought a 2-bed terrace for almost half a million in Cabra in the boom and now live there with 2 children and are on top of each other and in deep negative equity.

My point there is: what if plans go wrong and you get to stay 12 instead of 7 years? What if kids come along? It's probably the biggest transaction in your life after all. I'd only buy if I knew I can also stay there without feeling hopelessly cramped if the plan doesn't work out and personal circumstances change (sickness, children etc).

It didn't start with the boom. But during in the boom and even earlier with tax breaks for first time buyers, in the 90's they built smaller and smaller houses and apartments. Most of which are unsuitable for long term living, couples or families. I think Europe they have apartment sizes and developments better suited for families.

The problem is with the banking crisis people got stuck unable to move. Couldn't remortage, move loans, sell or rent. And as LirW the problem now is the same, you risk buying somewhere you will be stuck in. But at the same time you don't want to over extend either.

LirW

Sorry for putting up the confusion, I only do metric (not Irish after all). Anyway, that's a matter of taste, I prefer compact and reasonable layout. Especially FTB seem to forget that a house needs a lot more upkeep than some rental gaff. For me a big house and some huge garden looks good on paper but I don't have the time and energy to maintain this.

I'm fully with Mr. Cogley here, 100-120 sqm (!) isn't small, that is more than reasonable for 2 adults and 2 children. If both partners are working you'll still spend a lot of time keeping it in good nick.
Good friends have a 78 sqm ex council house in Marino and they effectively use downstairs and have a spare bedroom and the box room that's barely used. Just waiting for the kids to come along to fill them.
Buy whatever suits your personal needs.

screamer

I know lots of people that bought into the B'S of starter homes.... only to find themselves stuck in negative equity in shoeboxes that were not big enough for their expanding family and no one wanted to buy so they ended up becoming involuntary landlords renting out the starter homes and suplementing the rent to pay the mortgage whilst also paying to rent another house more suitable for themselves. Don't buy into it and the banks trying to sucker a whole nrw generation into the shackles of debt. If you must buy a home buy somewhere that there is scope to convert an attic or garage or build on. Make sure that achool soaces arent at a premium in case you have kids down the line and most importantly ask yourself could I live here forever if I had to because you never know what can happen to the market and that starter home becomes your forever home.

Graham

Am I getting this right?

Don't let the evil banks shackle you with debt by borrowing even more money to buy a property much larger than you need?

screamer

Graham wrote: »

Am I getting this right?

Don't let the evil banks shackle you with debt by borrowing even more money to buy a property much larger than you need?

Id actually advise the OP not to buy at all at the moment the market is overheated and prices will reduce its just a matter of waiting. But if they must buy even if its a starter home make sure it has some futureproofing with scope turn it into what may be needed a few years down the line.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I can't think of anywhere it's small tbh. Even the sprawling bungalows of the sticks wouldn't be more then 1500sq ft on average. Yes there are larger houses out there but 1500-2000sq ft is a large house. In Dublin given the right area 1800-2500sq ft is easily mansion and €2million plus territory.

Examples

Clare: fecking huge place but come into Ennis and it get's more sensible. Meanwhile 13million off this bargain which I will scientifically guestimate is around 2200 sqft.

Meh okay 3000sqft here so I'll concede 1000sqft as middling.

Most rural houses built in the last 20 or 30 years will be over 2000sq ft. My home house is 30 years old and it's around 2300sq feet. Any of my friends who self built lately were over 2500sq ft one was over 3000sq feet, now that's a proper house and the type of thing I'd be thinking about doing myself. So to me 1000sq ft would be in the small side.

Graham

Camdyn Incalculable Yogurt wrote: »

Most rural houses built in the last 20 or 30 years will be over 2000sq ft..

Most rural houses wouldn't be particularly representative of the Irish housing stock.

LirW

Camdyn Incalculable Yogurt wrote: »

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I can't think of anywhere it's small tbh. Even the sprawling bungalows of the sticks wouldn't be more then 1500sq ft on average. Yes there are larger houses out there but 1500-2000sq ft is a large house. In Dublin given the right area 1800-2500sq ft is easily mansion and €2million plus territory.

Examples

Clare: fecking huge place but come into Ennis and it get's more sensible. Meanwhile 13million off this bargain which I will scientifically guestimate is around 2200 sqft.

Meh okay 3000sqft here so I'll concede 1000sqft as middling.

Most rural houses built in the last 20 or 30 years will be over 2000sq ft. My home house is 30 years old and it's around 2300sq feet. Any of my friends who self built lately were over 2500sq ft one was over 3000sq feet, now that's a proper house and the type of thing I'd be thinking about doing myself. So to me 1000sq ft would be in the small side.

The typical semi-D you have in Dublin goes for a fraction of the price in rural areas, because people who live or move out want their land and large houses. We didn't and just got our house (roughly 100 sqm) in the south of Wicklow county for some really little money. Came across plenty of houses like that and rural + in a terrace seems to be quite unattractive to plenty.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Most rural houses wouldn't be particularly representative of the Irish housing stock.

Poster isn't saying they are representative.

Samuel T. Cogley

screamer wrote: »

Id actually advise the OP not to buy at all at the moment the market is overheated and prices will reduce its just a matter of waiting. But if they must buy even if its a starter home make sure it has some futureproofing with scope turn it into what may be needed a few years down the line.

The problem with a crash - which you're not advocating as far as I can see - is nothing is for sale, other than that hopefully there will be a slow down but an actual reduction in the short-medium term, barring a crash, not so sure.

Camdyn Incalculable Yogurt wrote: »

Most rural houses built in the last 20 or 30 years will be over 2000sq ft. My home house is 30 years old and it's around 2300sq feet. Any of my friends who self built lately were over 2500sq ft one was over 3000sq feet, now that's a proper house and the type of thing I'd be thinking about doing myself. So to me 1000sq ft would be in the small side.

I simply reject the notion that people are building 2000+ sqft homes as the norm. Why on earth would someone saddle themselves with cleaning and heating that let alone the cost of building it in the first place. Now I've no doubt some people with huge litters are, indeed, building large houses, fair enough but 1000sqft is certainly not a small house. Now if you're talking 2000+ including the attic area again I would say including the attic are is not the norm, but perhaps becoming so i.e. it being a fully habitable space.

Lumen

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I simply reject the notion that people are building 2000+ sqft homes as the norm. Why on earth would someone saddle themselves with cleaning and heating that let alone the cost of building it in the first place. Now I've no doubt some people with huge litters are, indeed, building large houses, fair enough but 1000sqft is certainly not a small house. Now if you're talking 2000+ including the attic area again I would say including the attic are is not the norm, but perhaps becoming so i.e. it being a fully habitable space.

A 2000sqft house built to current regs costs almost nothing to heat.

IMO a 1000sqft (93sm) house is small for a family. I spent over a decade in a family of four in a a 120sqm house and found the space quite limiting. We needed a home office which took out the box bedroom, leaving us with no spare room for when my mother would come to stay, so in those cases the kids would have to bunk in with each other. None of the larger bedrooms were spacious; our master bedroom was wall-to-wall wardrobes with no space even for a chair, and it was a squeeze between the bed and the wardrobes. We had clothes drying in the kitchen.

None of this is exactly hardship, but inconvenient.

We now have double the space (at double the distance from Dublin city centre) and it's much more pleasant. We can choose furniture that we like, as opposed to what squeezes in, there's enough space for a proper spare room, we have a separate utility for a chest freezer, ironing and drying space, and a ground floor storage room which doesn't require us to go up a ladder.

I'm not knocking efficient city living, but more space is better, that's why people pay more for it.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

draiochtanois

Building bigger from day one is much smarter and cheaper than finding out you need more space down the road. It didn't cost that much more to build a bigger house than a smaller one, a 2000sq ft house will be nowhere near twice the price of a 1000sq ft house to build.

Heating is not an issue in modern houses, cleaning is a lot easier actually in a higher house as you have space around furniture etc it also isn't that much more work and rooms you aren't using don't get dirty. In any case just get a cleaner if you find it too much work, I have no interest in spending time cleaning so I pay someone else to do it.

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you go to some expansive contractor maybe but not if you get direct labour you won't pay anything close to that (excluding site) for a house 2500sq ft plus.