6/14  They say that condos do not have a good resell value compared to
      single family house. Is this really true?  -potential buyer
        \_ For crebbs: you're making a few mistakes in your SFH vs condo
           analysis. 1) SF is not a normal market situation.  Any place where
           there's too many people and not enough housing of any sort combined
           with draconian rental laws like SF has which limit rental stock is
           going to drive up all housing prices.  2) time counts.  no one cares
           that you can buy a condo today and make $5k selling a month later.
           What you can't do is make a profit on your condo over the long haul.
           At the end of a 30 year mortgage, the mortgage rate is next to
           nothing compared to ever increasing income levels.  At the end of a
           30 year stay in a condo, the condo is going to have ever increasing
           dues, maintenance that the condo board has put off for years
           resulting in *huge* emergency bills sent to everyone that you're
           legally required to pay no matter high the bill.  And a "condo
           neighborhood" never improves over time.  It's a glorified apartment
           complex.  A SFH community grows over time, has a real community,
           and becomes the kind of place people really like to live in.  Thus,
           I can buy a house today and sell it in 30, 50, or 90 years and it'll
           make me a fortune but the condo is a break-even buy at best.  Go
           look at real world prices outside articifially constricted areas
           like SF, compare prices, then come back to the motd with your
           theories.  In the mean time the smart folks on the motd are all out
           buying the nicest, biggest, best house they can afford in the nicest
           places they can afford.  This isn't a fluke.  This isn't because
           motd folks are stupid (intentionally obnoxious maybe but that's
           another story).  Anyway, go get some real data and prove the
           conventional wisdom wrong.  Later.  I gotta go mow the lawn....
           \_ Here is Condo vs. Home appreciation for Chicago. Anyplace
              where land is scarce is going to show similar data, not
              just SF:
              http://www.illinoisrealtor.org/iar/marketstats/news_release.html
              The difference is even more marked over the last ten years.
      \_ admittedly, thus guy got *really* lucky, but i know a guy
         who bought a condo on forclosure for something in the 30-40k
         range.  just as he was moving in, someone offered to buy it for about
         60k.  he sold it on the spot and bought a real house, using the
         profit as down.  basically, the buyer wanted a block of
         condos, and already owned the adjacent one.  like i said, though
         he was really damn lucky. not all luck, though, since he somehow
         got the real house in forclosure for a great price also.
         i think part of the secret is not to trust those fucking
         realtor snakes.  when they say they're working for you,
         they are *lying*.
      \_ Generally, yes.
          \_ Hogwash.  Real estate agents often say this.  However, real
              estate agents usually have the intelligence of a poorly
              trained poodle.  Just think about it.  If it were true and
              had been for the last 20 years, you should be able to get
              one hell of a deal on a condo, but guess what, you can't.
              (unless condos used to sell at one hell of a premium) -crebbs
              \_ Dear Condo Owner, I don't care what REA's say.  I don't talk
                 to them or know any.  The ones I did meet while shopping for
                \_ Home Owner, you are wrong in too many ways to count, most
                   importantly, in the notion that homes always appreciate
                   more than condos:
                   http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.NSF/pages/indwatch200203041?OpenDocument
                 property were either evil or stupid.  I say this based on
                 real world data.  Go back and compare housing prices over the
                 years vs. condo prices.  A house is a *much* better buy in a
                 'normal' real estate market.  In a place like San Francisco
                 where local housing laws have artificially reduced the supply
                 of housing, *everything* will go up no matter how utterly
                 shitty, slummy, and unlivable for a normal human being.  SF
                 and other shitholes are the exception to the "Generally"
                 statement above.  Over time housing prices will *always*
                 rise *anywhere* in the country.  The same is not at all true
                 for condos.  -Home Owner
                 \_ Home Owner, you are wrong in too many ways to count, most
                    importantly, in the notion that homes always appreciate
                    more than condos:
                    http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.NSF/pages/indwatch200203041?OpenDocument
                    \_ Your link is crap.  It only goes back to 96 and only
                       talks in depth about the last TWO years.  Try again.
                       \_ No, you don't know what you are talking about.
                          Most places in America suffer from a land
                          shortage and have been experiencing Urban infill
                          for the last decade or so, causing condos to
                          to outpace home appreciation. You can bet against
                          this trend if you want, but your notion that land
                          is always cheap and people will always be willing
                          to travel long distances to afford a single family
                          home is increasingly outdated.
                 \_ 1st.) i don't own a condo and never have, so you are
                     wrong twice.
                     2nd) I am not going to spend the time explaining how
                     incredibly lame your "Over time" argument is.
                     3rd) I didn't say anything about "better buy."  as that
                     can be interpreted many ways.  (you have a knack for
                     making meaningless statements). I am referring to the
                     original poster's point about resell values.  And
                     No one here has explained how it is that condo's could,
                     for the history of their existence, been getting smaller
                     percentage gains in price over time and YET, if you go
                     looking for a condo, pretty much anywhere, it costs
                     about what you would expect a condo of that size to cost
                     relative to a house. Certainly very similar to the
                     differential 10 years ago.
                     finally.)  I could be wrong if e.g., increase in
                     homeowners dues had a tendency to outpace other
                     increases.  It also may be true for SOME condominiums in
                     deteriorating complexes but there are also SFR areas
                     that deteriorate, you just have to pick a good complex
              \- i had a coversation about this kind of "rational expectations"
                 analysis of stuff like "condos=bad", pricing differentials
                 of good schol district [investment component + consumption
                 component], etc with a real estate person sitting next to
                 me on a plane. she convinced me there were certain "sticky"
                 and dynamic issues that made the simplistic analysis
                 flawed. for example if you factor in the market's ability
                 to change the quantity of condos onthe mkt either by new
                 building or apt conversation, it becomes plausible that there
                 is some "pressure" against them. ok tnx. --psb
                 \_ this assumes a purely segmented market.  This is not
                    the case.  It seems like a good argument that it is easier
                    to make condo's than houses in an appreciating market,
                    so there would be less inflationary pressure on them. But
                    at the margins (which is where it matters) there are
                    plenty of home-seekers that would buy a condo if the
                    price was right. (admittedly there are many who wouldn't)
                    In appreciating markets, condo's become more attractive
                    as houses move out of reach of some buyers.  As is always
                    the case with this sort of thing, it is almost impossible
                    to state what the final effect is going to be.  You can,
                    though, say, as i have thrice now:  "look if condos
                    always gained less than houses, they would be REALLY
                    cheap RIGHT NOW (they having been around for some time)
                    and they are not." -crebbs
                    \_ idiot.
                 \_ and that argument also falls apart for places like SF
                    where it is hard to just build condos, and equally hard
                    to do apt->condo conversions.
                    \_ You miss the part above where someone talks very
                       specifically about SF and other artificial markets?
            \_ No, SFH generally have better appreciation and hold
                 their value better (based on past history of the market).
            \_ Also keep in mind that if a certain ratio of condo's become
                rented in a complex, that potential buyers will not be able
                to get financing.
                 \_ Please explain and(/or) point me to a url.  I haven't
                    heard this.
                    \_ I dont know a specific url, but this was mentioned in
                    the chronical financial advice section about 2 weeks ago.
                    The gist was that in a condo/homeowners complex, where
                    there are too many absentee owners (landlords renting
                    out places) they wind up controlling the homeowners
                    association (as the HOA runs on one vote per PROPERTY,
                    not per occupant/owner), screwing up resale values in the
                    community and making financial institutions reluctant to
                    finance properties in the community. -ERic
                    \_ also, renter's tend not to take care of the condo's
                        as well as owner's, e.g. they can become run down.