LogFAQs > #967642824

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Who is paying this much for an almost 200 year old house??
Count_Drachma 08/28/22 10:31:20 PM #26:	HornedLion posted... it was fricken built in 1850 I'll take, "Clueless remarks for $100," Alex. The age of a house is pretty much fucking meaningless since, by itself, it doesn't tell you anything beyond the fact the house has stood for that long. captpackrat posted... 9,583 square feet? That's a pretty big house! Oh, that's the size of the lot? That's tiny. The house is only 1,331 square feet? For 5 bedrooms? Rooms in older homes tend to be smaller. Partly because people weren't as fat back then, but also practical reasons. DarkMinun posted... I don't know the local market, but an old in good condition is generally worth more than a new house of similar size/features. Pretty much. Honestly, that home looks like a bargain, especially for something in CT. ParanoidObsessive posted... If it's well-maintained, it should probably cost waaay more in that particular market. Connecticut is expensive as fuck, and 5 bedrooms is kind of ridiculous. This so fucking hard. It's suspiciously low. HornedLion posted... Yeah but the integrity of the house is my gripe. As well as the materials used. The reason people flock to newer homes in newly built neighborhoods is because the things used are generally safer, and the pipes that have been laid down are brand spanking new. No rust and BS. lolwut? Modern homes generally aren't built nearly as well as older homes. faramir77 posted... $3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000. It's in CT. High taxes are kinda our thing. --- Everybody's got a price / Everybody's got to pay / Because the Million Drachma Man / Always gets his way. AhahahahMMH <cite>Count_Drachma posted [p:967642824] in Who is pay... [t:80144646]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite><quote>it was fricken built in 1850</quote>I'll take, "Clueless remarks for $100," Alex.The age of a house is pretty much fucking meaningless since, by itself, it doesn't tell you anything beyond the fact the house has stood for that long.captpackrat posted... </cite><quote>9,583 square feet? That's a pretty big house!Oh, that's the size of the lot? That's tiny.The house is only 1,331 square feet? For 5 bedrooms?</quote>Rooms in older homes tend to be smaller. Partly because people weren't as fat back then, but also practical reasons.DarkMinun posted... </cite><quote>I don't know the local market, but an old in good condition is generally worth more than a new house of similar size/features.</quote>Pretty much.Honestly, that home looks like a bargain, especially for something in CT.ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>If it's well-maintained, it should probably cost waaay more in that particular market. Connecticut is expensive as fuck, and 5 bedrooms is kind of ridiculous.</quote>This so fucking hard. It's suspiciously low.HornedLion posted... </cite><quote>Yeah but the integrity of the house is my gripe. As well as the materials used.The reason people flock to newer homes in newly built neighborhoods is because the things used are generally safer, and the pipes that have been laid down are brand spanking new. No rust and BS.</quote>lolwut? Modern homes generally aren't built nearly as well as older homes. faramir77 posted... </cite><quote>$3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000.</quote>It's in CT. High taxes are kinda our thing. --- Everybody's got a price / Everybody's got to pay / Because the Million Drachma Man / Always gets his way. AhahahahMMH</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1