Adler, a stickler for historical detail, was being faithful to the New England tradition of centering the main entry door and not protecting it with a portico. You can assume that most of what Adler put into his houses was based on sketches from his tours of New England; that's what architects did in that era. The mixture of materials was a romantic idea used to make a country house appear more indigenous and suggest sequential construction. This house was the romantic alternative to a full-blown Colonial Revival mansion which had originally been proposed. You might not appreciate everything Adler did but it would be wise to consider all aspects of it carefully before discarding it. Subtle details like unfinished red cedar shingles on the dormers are not appreciated in today's climate of uniformity.

I always get a little uneasy when I see houses on someone's web site with names, particularly when the names don't have much basis in architectural history. To me, it signals more of a marketing mentality than a knowledge of and focus on architecture and architectural history. It tends to suggest that the designs were developed for repetitious resale, rather than having anything to do with a given family or site. Only a few architect's web sites do this, IMO. Most architects tend to name their projects for their owners or for something unusual and unique about the project or site. In many cases, architects do not have the goal to resale their work, time and again in some sort of universal manner. Just a thought.

I bought my first house about a year after college graduation, in a down market. Relocated 3 years later, took forever to sell, got out exactly what I had paid for it because it was still a down market. Swore I'd never buy again unless I was going to be somewhere for at least 5 years. The main reason is that houses are not liquid assets (can take time to sell) and they have high transaction costs (realtor fees, loan origination fees). I broke my rule 2 moves later, because my employer would cover the transaction costs of any future relocations, so that negative went away. It's also very true that maintenance costs add up. Not just stuff breaking, but you have to buy lawn care equipment and you'll want to change things to make it a nicer place to live. If I re-wound my life tape and was in your shoes again, I'd save up enough for the house plus an extra 3-6 months of living expenses, and pay cash for the house. Paying cash will save you a few grand out of the gate, not to mention the interest you'd be paying. And on a $16K house, $3K is a high percentage. Then cash flow the improvements you want to make. Also, look at the neighborhood and get an estimate of what the house could sell for if fixed up. Where I live, the $20K homes are undesirable neighborhoods where all the fixing up in the world won't budge the price more than a few thousand. That's because they're mostly low-end rentals, so your potential buyers would be mostly investors, who look solely at what they can rent it for, not how nice and homey the finishes look. Those neighborhoods have a limited number of people willing to live in them (i.e., those that can't afford anything else), and thus there's a ceiling on the rent they can charge. Now if you're talking about a $20K fixer in a neighborhood of $80K owner-occupied homes, that's a completely different story.

Here comes another argument... First, there are some very good reasons to own rental property as an investment but they may not be the things you are thinking. Some of the reasons that come to mind are (this is not an exhaustive list, others will have different advice and experiences, this one is mine): Rental property takes advantage of leverage better than most other investments. You can finance 80% of a rental investment which you can't do with a stock market investment. With $20,000 you can get a $100,000 capital assets with a 3% interest rate right now, that is really pretty good. Rental property lets you get a second job working for yourself. Rental property makes money the same way a job does, it lets you convert your time, effort and know-how into revenue. It is important to remember that rental property is a second job, and just like any job some people are naturally good at it, others are naturally bad at it, and just like other jobs experience matters. When you start you are going to make mistakes, as you learn you will make less mistakes, be sure that you are financially capable of absorbing those mistakes. It is an incredibly valuable experience. I believe (my opinion here) that people who are responsible rental property owners develop better spending and investing habits as a whole. I personally think it is hard not to, and prize it as one of my most valuable life lessons. However, there are some things that are also bad about it. Rental property is a job. It requires a lot more attention than traditional investing. It is not a good choice on a shoestring budget. A poor rental property owner is soon to be a very poor ex rental property owner. Houses require upkeep, houses you own and don't live in require more upkeep, houses you own and someone else lives in require even more upkeep...Upkeep is expensive. Bad houses can make great rentals, and great houses can make bad rentals. Renting is about attracting the right tenant for your price point. A lovely inexpensive home can easily turn into a not so lovely cheap home. The best tenants are typically people who can or soon will be able to afford homes but aren't buying for some reason. For less expensive rental homes they are pretty hard to find. Finally, some of the things you are saying really make me think that it isn't for you. It is not an amazing retirement investment. Assuming you have $20,000 equity in the home, taking that same $20k at your age and investing in a broad market mutual fund has averaged about $320,000 at age 67. Rental property can become an amazing retirement investment when you do smart things with the income. In and of itself, property is a rather lousy investment (here comes the argument). To clarify this, buying property in hopes that the appreciation will be an amazing investment hasn't worked very many places (there are times it has in California but that is the exception). Edit: A great thought experiment for you: First, think of the position you will be in if you buy another house without selling this one. Next, think of the position you will be in if you sold this house and bought another one. Now, if you didn't own any house at all which option would you pick? This is a way to remove the sunk cost fallacy from your decision making.