Hello guys, I have yet another question about real estate. I was looking to buy a house and want to make the right investment. One house is 3,000 sq. ft. and is in a very good area. The other house is 1,500 sq.ft but is in a nice luxury community. Provided that both houses have similar upgrades, which house will appreciate higher in the long run? The big house in a nice area, or the average house in a premium area?

 

Oh, both these houses cost $300,000 by the way. Both were built the exact same year, which was in 2002.

 

Are you in California?

 

yes.

 

My guess would be the average house in a premium area would be worth more. There is a reason the smaller house is selling for more per sq ft than the larger one and I assume it is because of it's location.

Here in Houston I know people who are paying $400k for an older home near the city while larger and newer homes 20 miles out in the burbs are selling for $200-$250. People will pay more for convenience and to be a part of a community they believe is better.

The above is just my opinion. I am not a realtor. Talk to as many people in the business as you can before pulling the trigger.

Good luck.

 

I agree with Hustn. You always want the worst house in the best area, cause you can fix it up, add on to it, landscape it, etc to bring it up to the best house, and then watch it appreciate.
Remember the golden rule of real estate- Location, Location, Location.

 

[QUOTE=rich5842,Jul 17 2004, 09:29 PM] Hello guys, I have yet another question about real estate.

 

As long as your beating the demographics you'll be ahead. You want to buy at the bottom of the market in terms of market value in the most expensive neighborhood. Rule of thumb. Which is the better is the location!

 

Hey guys. Thank you very much for your advice. I think I will take the smaller house in the nicer location. This web site is awesome!