Hacker News Reader

Repeating my post from below:

I'm obviously simplifying. Luxury apartments downtown are different to the sort of monstrosities you see in suburbs.

Moving from a family home in a suburb into the city =/= moving from a family home into a block of flats on the same street. The latter is what I am calling a 'strict downgrade'.

People tend to revisit these preferences when their oldest turns 4, and they discover the unfortunate shitshow that is urban schools.

I feel that often the complaints associated with loving in urban apartments has less to do with the apartments themselves, and more societal trends that have arisen out of rich people sticking to suburbs over multiple generations.

Schools are the #1 example of this.

Badly maintained rental apartments and higher crime rates are some other examples of the same.

> Badly maintained rental apartments

Not just badly maintained but badly designed as well.

I've live in flats (apartments) since 2003 and off the two I actually liked there was a single distinguishing characteristic - They where quiet.

One was a department store that was converted so the floors where thick rebar concrete and the current one was just well designed in terms of noise.

Noise is an absolute determining factor on where I choose to live (as a life long insomniac it makes the difference between half decent sleep when I'm really tired and not).

Modern high rises are almost always steel and concrete, so pretty quiet.

Modern mid rises are usually a single concrete story, then wood.

A low floor on a high rise is often higher quality and competitively priced with a mid rise.

Or when they turn 60 and discover that a vacation rental and condo is cheaper than maintenance of the big house.

Absolutely.

In my area older folks are leaving 30-40 year old suburban tract homes that needs roofs, hvac, etc and moving to condos in or near the city.

Failing to save for predictable maintenance is a scourge on humanity...

Based on conversations with some of my neighbors, it's less accidentally forgetting to save for those expenses and more purposely hoping to dump the place on someone else before it becomes their problem.

Agreed, but the scale-up of banks and spreading of risk that makes credit easy to get makes poor maintenance easy to get away with. You can still get a loan on a collapsed hovel!

>In the end it's up to personal preference, and you're certainly welcome to prefer a house. But don't assume that everyone has the same preference as you.

Likewise, don't assume that preferences are equally distributed among options.

In most demographics, and especially after having a family, the "apartment lifestyle" thing is in the minority.

I like not having a front/back yard to maintain (I don't enjoy gardening).

I don’t either. That’s what lawn service is for.

And that's not to mention the many benefits of living in a higher-density neighborhood, which would be impossible in a place full of semi-/fully-detached houses.

I moved from house to apartment for 3 years and hated every minute of it. Noisy neighbors, no garage, bad WiFi with everyone having the same apartment mandated internet and cable package, and a gym with unmaintained equipment.

Not to mention rent that went up from $1200 to $1600 within three years. Now the same place is $2000 just 3 years later.

Unfortunately owning a home doesn't insulate you from that. My homeowners insurance jumped from about 350/year to about 1400/year during the last recession. And property taxes jumped from 5K to nearly 9K. This is over a 10 year period.

Just curious do you love in a "blue state"... Supporting the pensions of the gym teacher who retired at 55 drawing $100k+ for the rest of his/her life?

If property taxes and homeowners insurance jumped for your home by that much, they probably also jumped for the owners of the rental property you would have alternatively been staying in. The landlord would have passed that cost on to thier tenants. So you still have to worry about that and them raising the rent at the drop of a dime.

Not necessarily. One basis for rates and taxes can be the proportion of an individual's unimproved land value. Typically apartment dwellers end up paying far less rates and taxes under such a scheme. (ignoring any question of economics such as rent-demand elasticity and whether landlords can just pass the full cost of any tax increase onto tennants).

I also know that my comparative insurance is less because I live off the ground floor in an apartment block with restricted/limited access and hard concrete construction.

Any desire to tax non-dense/dense properties at similar or different rates is a particular policy choice, and on a cost ratio basis the denser living choice often ends up being cheaper because resources can be pooled and shared.

You do know that you can own an apartment, right? Conflating the two issues is a bit parochial; at most, the complaint should be that you don't happen to have a decent choice of apartments for sale in the specific place you want to live.

At least in the US, apartments are typically owned on a per-building basis, and generally by a company or investor. Buildings where each unit has an individual owner are typically referred to as condominiums. Buying a condo unit also entails buying an ownership share in the condo association that maintains common areas and such. In an apartment, you just pay your rent and utilities and the landlord is responsible for everything else.

Also not to be confused with town houses, which are just houses shoved right next to each other, often with an association to cover expenses in the shared areas, but you own the house itself and the property it sits on.

We moved into a townhouse a year ago, and the number of people (including our neighbors) that think we live in a condo association is startling. I'm pretty sure part of it is that the realtors here don't understand the difference.

“Condominium” is the economic relationship; “apartment” is the physical space. There are, for example, condominium detached houses.

I didn’t think about that. I understand a condo as individually owned apartments. But what makes a separate house a “condo”? Honest question, not trying to be argumentative.

The condo association owns the land and building exterior, is responsible for landscaping, etc. Usually in a development with a lot of similar-looking houses close together.

Another reply already stated apartment vs condominium distinction at least in the US. But even if you own your apartment/condominium it still doesn’t address the concern of noisy neighbors and now you have to deal with a condo association.

At least in the UK this isn't really a thing.

In London you have share of freehold apartments in the outer boroughs, but in Central London it's almost all leasehold. You have a long lease, but ultimately you have a superior landlord, pay a service charge which can vary, the exterior of the building isn't yours, etc.

A huge benefit of buying a house over an apartment here is that you can actually meaningfully own it. Repairs are up to you, the postbox is up to you, if you want a thing done you just do it (no negotiation or cost sharing), the land is yours forever and the superior landlord can't change to one who's less amenable, etc.

I suppose this could fall under your: > happen to have a decent choice of apartments for sale

comment, but it's really more that the legal structures in the UK hugely favour owning a house. (I'm not really sure it could ever be different, an apartment is always going to be "closer to renting" because it's communal to a degree).

At least in the US, this ownership can come with caveats. Namely, you can be kicked out if a majority of condo association owners want you out. Such as if a big company comes along and wants the building. It takes a lot more to forcefully move someone out of a house.