Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbuzbee | Hacker News Reader

This article claims that these homes are going because buyer preferences have shifted towards smaller homes in walkable areas. I don't disagree with this, but I'm surprised the article didn't factor in the cost of these homes.

These homes are priced in the millions and are generally not in areas known for high salaries. Coming up with that much money is out of reach for most members of younger generations. Some people may be interested in buying these gargantuan homes, but they can't afford it.

And as the article states, the generation that can most afford these homes, boomers, is losing interest in these homes because they are coming to terms with how impractical they are as they age.

View on HN

I hate to sound so cynical and negative, but, God, this article is really just a case study in how stupid, materialistic, and short-sighted many Boomers are.

That generation was raised on the idea that happiness comes from owning as many things as possible. They've had decades to learn — like the generations after them did — that this is nonsense and that happiness comes from connection to family, friends, and community.

But, instead, some segment of them still build giant empty monoliths to consumerism out in the middle of nowhere and then get surprised when they discover that they are still old and approaching death and that they still don't feel good.

They had a 5000 square foot house BUILT when they were 82 - more money than sense.

The article is generalizing a bit, and focusing on just one aspect of boomer housing matters.

For example, it's also quite common for baby boomers to hold onto their existing 3-bedroom homes, and in the process restrict housing supply of what should be affordable, reasonably-sized homes for millennials seeking to put down roots and start a family. I don't think there's anything wrong with this BTW, as it can be quite prudent to do so.

I think people were gambling on baby-boomers moving back to the cities and "downsizing" to a decent 2 or 3 bedroom condominiums. Instead, those units ended up selling to cosmopolitan millennials and Gen-Xers.

I'm not sure millenials or Gen-Xers are any less materially obsessed, I think we just generally have less money to spend on the things Boomers did. It isn't like we aren't spending thousands on tech, clothing, etc. I hesitate to condemn Boomers too harshly for their lifestyle choices given the benefit of hindsight when I'm sure my generation will also be pilloried for the aspects of lifestyle we are living that will later be seen as moronic.

Yeah I live in a 2 bed room condo because it's cheap. I would prefer to live in a house and could afford it, but the ones in my area are pricey with fairly high property taxes (2-3%). Mortgage rates are 4-5%, so that all adds up with maintenance and insurance. It would just be a really big commitment to take on those costs just to gain a yard and few extra rooms.

What's also interesting is the article claims that the Mediterranean look is out of style -- which I totally agree with -- but that house is decidedly not Mediterranean. It's more of a Tutor style, which is an trendy in high-end homes right now.

So it's absolutely an issue of price and lack of salaries in the middle of nowhere.

Ideally I would say that at a lower price, they would sell just fine, but the reality is that these homes are in a bad position. Appraisals mean that the property taxes will be sizeable in and of themselves -- even if they priced it at $1 there would not be many who could afford it.

That's not even mentioning upkeep and utilities.

For $3 million far from town why wouldn't you just build yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com