Is an older contemp style a bad investment?

9 years ago

Taking my inlaws to see a lake house (vacation home) on Friday.

It's a home by a specific builder in my province (Nova Scotia) called Interhabs. The builder has a very particular look to their houses on the outside - let's call it 80s Euro contemporary.

The location and lot are beyond excellent. The home itself could use quite a bit. I was sort of happily thinking of all the things I could do to spruce it up, when another thought struck me, which is that this type of home may never appeal to a wide range of buyers, and maybe it wouldn't be worth much to spruce it up. I mean, it will never look much different on the outside!

I think I'm blinkered by my love of all weird houses, so I ask you, do you think this type of home is worth a bit of an investment? Or will it always appeal to niche buyers (like me) and have a hard time selling no matter what?

FWIW the builder has a great reputation. There are some contemporary houses, particularly vacation homes, in our province, but the market is generally conservative.

The Listing

The type of house (a different house)

Similar model after being spruced up

The area - full of vineyards and charming things like llama farms. So what do you think?

Two nearby listings

On the same lake

On a different lake but nearby. Inlaws didn't like this one because it's on a terrible road (other listings are off paved road) and oriented poorly to the lake.

This post was edited by robotropolis on Wed, Jun 4, 14 at 21:55

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (17)

User
9 years ago
Wow ... the lake/river, the views!

The exterior of the house is going to resist changes other than paint, but I'm seeing an airy rustic modern interior with lots of light. That's a keeper.

I think it's more of an exaggerated New England Saltbox style than modern.
morz8 - Washington Coast
9 years ago
May I move in too?

I see nothing weird about that house at all given its setting. It might look a little strange in an urban neighborhood but certainly fits its site....which is gorgeous.

I could see many hours of summer fun there, along with a book, cozy throw, watching winter storms. My vote is go for it - assuming all the construction is top notch.
Related Discussions
Extended warranties worth the investment?
Q
Comments (20)
Thanks to all who've chimed in. This sort of general discussion always provides helpful context. However, I am hoping for specific anecdotes about Jenn Air Pro Style and GE Cafe appliance purchases -- should any owners of those products stumble upon this thread. I have a sneaking suspicion we should be purchasing the extended warranty on the two most expensive items: GE Cafe Refrigerator (25.6cf; SxS; Stainless Steel) CSCP5UGXSS Jenn Air Pro Style Duel Fuel Range (4.6cf; Stainless Steel) JDS8860BDP I'm considering pulling the trigger on the GE refrigerator warranty simply because the product line is so new. As for the range, the often-repeated perceptions about Jenn Air's declining reputation for manufacturing quality has me wary. for the most part, I like the Jenn Air products so far, with some caveats. for instance, our old Maytag dishwasher had interior rack inserts with far superior layouts. And already, we've had to replace the Jenn Air microwave door using the basic warranty -- within the first two weeks! The two door latches stick out over an inch from the door frame, and one of them caught on a robe sleeve and broke in half. The latch wasn't steel, as it should be, but a cheap caste metal...
...See More
Young family investing: where to start?
Q
Comments (21)
I found that, though I can have certificates issued for mutual fund ownership (no fee), or stocks (about $35. each), I cannot have a stock certificAte issued for an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) in Canada. Which means that I cannot use the evidence of ownership of an ETF as security to arrange a line of credit or loan with my bank/credit union, at low rate of interest. I can use it as collateral with the stockbroker who holds the fund, as well as others of my assets, in his electronic data base ... but my experience has usually been that the stockbroker usually charges at least 1% higher rate than at the bank, which is an appreciable difference, when compounded over time. Sometimes I have little asset easily available as ready cash, or that I choose to liquidate now to make available as money in case of an emergency, as I may not like the price available, or the sales commission required. As I sometimes lack available ready-cash, I have a fully-secured Line of Credit, backed by certificates of stocks and mutual funds, to obtain a low rate of interest - currently about 6.25%, but unused at the moment. Then I can use a credit card in an emergency, then use my line of credit to pay off that amount in full before it starts accruing interest, unless the credit card carries 0% rate, which is not the case, as I have had my card for several years. The trouble is that the interest paid on a loan used for an emergency or consumption is almost always not deductible and I prefer to use loans for investment, thus making them deductible. So when I use an emergency loan for emergency, which is seldom deductible, I stop investing for a while and use that part of current income to pay off that non-deductible-interest loan as quickly as possible. Then I start using that regular saving to begin investing again, plus may borrow to invest, if I feel that the situation justifies it. Also, in my Canadian situation most of the time, I can borrow for investing at almost no net cost. Are you familiar with the Rule of 72? Divide 72 by the rate of gain/growth that you are getting and the result will show you the number of years that it will take for your investment to double. Thus, investment return of 6% will double in 12 years ... at 9% will double in 8 years. But it's not the raw figure that counts. If your bond pays 5% and you are in 20% tax bracket, that means that 1% is lost to tax, so your after-tax rate of return is actually 4%. But when your bond matures, you'll get back only the number of dollars invested originally, so those equal-value dollars suffer annual erosion of value due to inflation. If you assume inflation to be 3%, that leaves your effective rate of return at only 1%. Which means that it'll take 72 years for my $1.00 current return on invested asset to become $2.00. I bought a long-term quality Canadian stock 40 years ago for $4.20, that paid me about a dime or so a year in dividend, which is tax-advantaged here. Over the years, it's paid about 3% or so, or about 2.5% after taxes. A few months ago I could have sold that stock for $107.+ per share, and a few months later for about $89.50, and since it recovered to about $101.00, then last Friday dropped to about $96.50. Did I choose ot sell it? Not on your life! It has grown well for me over the years, and is currently a high quality stock. As the stock has grown well over the years, you can see my reasoning when I say that I do not feel the need to make any calculated deduction from current dividend rate to allow for the erosion of value of the basic investment due to inflation. Current after-tax income of 2.5%, divided into 72, shows that those dividends reinvested will double in about 30 years ... to my mind, a lot better than taking 72 years to do it. When I calculated the rate of growth of the stock a while ago, I think that I calculated that to be about 7% compounded. So you can see my reasons for being happy with that investment. That's one of my better ones - one of my equity-based mutual funds has taken over 20 years to slightly more than double. I'm not very pleased with the folks who have managed it over the years - and they've changed several times. Good wishes as you pursue your savings and investment program. ole joyful
...See More
Investing in a small home as your "forever home"
Q
Comments (24)
Your house is lovely in a charming, old-fashioned type of way that appeals to many of us. I'm stealing a phrase from someone else (can't remember whom), but your house says "Ahhh" rather than "Wow!" That's exactly the feel I want from my house. I do not think you should feel pressure to move up to a bigger, more expensive house . . . just because you can /will be able to in the future. We are building a house that's much smaller than we could afford to build, and we're planning to fill it with luxury items . . . in moderation. I think you should proceed with caution because none of us knows what may happen in the coming years, and what you today call a "forever home" may NEED to be sold for any number of reasons: A work move, surprise twins or the need to take in a family member's child, a freeway coming through. None of us ever think these things will happen to us -- until they happen to us. We have to be realistic. I'd say go ahead and improve your small house with lovely things that will please you and enhance your life, but do keep it period appropriate, and don't over-do excessively for the neighborhood.
...See More
Wall Street Journal: Bad Laws = Bad Appliances?
Q
Comments (66)
Rinse aid can (partially) counter-act the problems that all dish washers have with hard water. If you have really soft water, as I do, you can mostly forgo rinse aid and you'll still have excellent results. If rinse aid isn't an option, then what you need is a water softener. A whole-house softener obviously works, but that's an expensive investment. Instead, you could buy a dishwasher that has a small internal softener. I know that this is a pretty common feature on many Miele models. I don't know if there are other manufacturers who do the same. Please note that you will now have to buy salt to recondition the softener every so often. So, you won't completely be able to get away from buying some extra consumables. But presumably, you aren't allergic to regular kitchen salt...
...See More
robo (z6a)
Original Author
9 years ago
Ok you all are making me feel better! I thought I was the only one who could love that roofline. That part of the home faces NE.
DLM2000-GW
9 years ago
The front facade is a bit.... odd, but I don't find it horrible or really objectionable given the setting. Other than that, the house interior and setting are wonderful!! I could be very happy vacationing there!

It looks like some re-landscaping at the front of the house - something a bit more crisp and structured might be a better fit and make the entry seem more important and in keeping with the house style. The loose, flowy, cottage type garden isn't doing the house any favors IMO. As it is, it kind of looks like a back door. But that's a minor adjustment, really and when it comes down to it wouldn't impact the use of the house at all. I'd focus on the minimum needed on the interior to make it what your in-laws want and get on with just enjoying it!
robo (z6a)
Original Author
9 years ago
I was thinking it might be cool to do not only a bold door color but a bold siding color on that front entry - sort of like that black house above. That way it pops a bit more. And I agree the front could use more structure and particularly a little height on either side of the door opening. Although they do have those three arbs over on the left which is a good start.

Anyway...trying not to get too attached because I find the inlaws are into taking their time and waiting for the exact right place for them. Which they deserve! But swimming season is coming up...and at least this way I can tell them I did some market research on the house style ;)

FYI this is the other place we're going to see...the house is newer and better maintained, but it's in the next valley over (a little less nice location) and the lot is smaller and faces North. Between that and an attached sunroom the place is less bright overall.

This post was edited by robotropolis on Thu, Jun 5, 14 at 9:29
musicgal
9 years ago
That first house is fabulous in my opinion. As long as it doesn't have structural issues, it is a great example of the 70s modern style I lusted after when I was a youngster. 70s are too recent to be properly appreciated right now, but I think these eclectic styles that were envisioned around the oil embargo will be treasured in the future.
musicgal
9 years ago
That first house is fabulous in my opinion. As long as it doesn't have structural issues, it is a great example of the 70s modern style I lusted after when I was a youngster. 70s are too recent to be properly appreciated right now, but I think these eclectic styles that were envisioned around the oil embargo will be treasured in the future.
trilobite
9 years ago
I love contemporaries, I'd move into that house in a heartbeat. I think this is the sort of house that requires a special buyer, but there will always be a handful of us, especially if the house is decently maintained.

Edited to add, along with my love of 1970s contemporaries, for some reason, I have a special fondness for houses built in the 1940s. Seriously, if I see a slightly older house that instantly appeals, it was often built in the 1940s.

This post was edited by trilobite on Thu, Jun 5, 14 at 15:44
Chadoe3
9 years ago
I love quirky. I'd buy that in a heartbeat!
User
9 years ago
The second house is "meh" ... not nearly as striking and airy as the first.
robo (z6a)
Original Author
9 years ago
I wish you were all around to sell my FIL on this house tomorrow...because I totally agree with you! Thanks so much for your feedback.
susanjn
9 years ago
What time should we be there? If your FIL doesn't like it, we might have a bidding war right there on the spot!

Good luck, and let us know what they think.
nosoccermom
9 years ago
I like the first house way more than the second one. In 10 years, it'll be a sought-after 'authentic 80s' design for rich (sub)urbanites. Good luck!
robo (z6a)
Original Author
9 years ago
Sad news! The photos were quite misleading and the house was not in decent shape :( Also you had to take a billy goat path to the lake. Which was not apparent at all from the listing. Even I couldn't love it. The inlaws were quite taken with the other house, however! Although less my style, personally, it would work nicely for all of us.

This post was edited by robotropolis on Fri, Jun 6, 14 at 17:23
nosoccermom
9 years ago
Sounds like they had a good photographer.

I think the issue with the second house is that there's no furniture but on the other hand, so much visual clutter. For example, everything is cramped in that one corner with the piano, fireplace, TV, and pictures.
That should be an easy fix, though.
robo (z6a)
Original Author
9 years ago
nosoccermom, yes, the second house is photographed quite badly but it's pretty charming on the inside. The inlaws like things nice and new, and this house was newer and well maintained. I am still very much a quirky/charming/oddball house fan, but it's most important to find somewhere they can enjoy (and hence, I can enjoy :)
alisonn
9 years ago
I think people will be more flexible on the house style when the house is lakefront. There are only so many lakefront homes, right?

Is an older contemp style a bad investment?

Comments (17)

User

morz8 - Washington Coast

Related Discussions

robo (z6a)
Original Author

DLM2000-GW

robo (z6a)
Original Author

musicgal

musicgal

trilobite

Chadoe3

User

robo (z6a)
Original Author

susanjn

nosoccermom

robo (z6a)
Original Author

nosoccermom

robo (z6a)
Original Author

alisonn

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Is an older contemp style a bad investment?

Comments (17)

Related Discussions

robo (z6a)Original Author

robo (z6a)Original Author

robo (z6a)Original Author

robo (z6a)Original Author

robo (z6a)Original Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

robo (z6a)
Original Author

robo (z6a)
Original Author

robo (z6a)
Original Author

robo (z6a)
Original Author

robo (z6a)
Original Author