Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane
Not only the closet space but the bathroom situations in older homes suck. Our airlite had no bathroom on the first floor (and neither do many older homes). Doesn't mean you can't add one but in a tight 1100 sf rowhome, there's not really space. And upstairs? No master bath, just a tiny shared bathroom with very little countertop space and if you have kids, it's not ideal.
And it's not as if a first floor bathroom and a master bathroom are ostentatious luxuries for the 1%. Pretty much every home built after the 1970's have these features, even modest townhomes. Homes with master bathrooms and first floor bathrooms (not to mention off-street parking, central air, bedrooms bigger than shoeboxes, etc.) are all very much attainable on a middle class salary. It's not as if one has to make compromises to afford such a home.
Some of the older larger homes (like what you may find in Spruce Hill) can be retrofitted because they're big enough to start with and within neighborhoods where that kind of investment makes financial sense. And even still, you have to be a little more than just middle class to do this or afford a remodeled Victorian.
I've said this before and I'll repeat it here: There's not enough neighborhoods in Philly that can cater to the average middle class family. Homes in and around Center City are super expensive and then you get into the outer neighborhoods where the homes are cheap but old and tiny. Relative to the endless rows of airlites and older rowhomes, the small pockets of decently sized modern-ish homes in the far northeast and pockets of northwest is small.
|
... Again though, you're just talking about size. An 1,100 sq foot home is 1,100 sq feet whether it was built in 1920 or 2017. Do you think it's easier to fit a first floor bathroom in a newer 1,100 sq ft home? Sure a first floor bathroom and a master bathroom is not an ostentatious luxury, but for an 1,100 sq foot home, it kind of is because it's simply not practical to fit 2.5 brs in a home that small, whether it was built after 1970 or not.
You're saying old homes are not suitable, but then you're not talking about anything at all that relates to the age of the home, you're just talking about the size. I simply do not understand this argument.
These types of small starter homes are essential for communities and there will always be a place for them, even if they're not personally suitable for you. And judging by how much an 1,100 sq foot room that is updated and in a desirable neighborhood can go for, there's clearly still a very strong market for small homes even in these modern times.
It seems like maybe you're saying Philly simply has too many small homes as compared to large homes? OK I guess, and maybe 2022 Philly would ideally have a higher percentage of larger homes that what existed in the past. Again though, this has nothing to do with the age of a rowhome. You're just talking about size.
Some of the homes you'll find in spruce hill are well over 100 years old, much older than the 1,100 sq ft homes that were built in the 50s you'll find all over the city. And yet according to you, these homes are more suitable for modern living. It's almost as though the age of the home is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Prev
Linear Mode
