4 ms·

It's costing you future money when you paint it a 'non-natural' color in the lost prospective buyers. This is fine if you're loaded with disposable income, but

by hueving 10y ago

It's costing you future money when you paint it a 'non-natural' color in the lost prospective buyers. This is fine if you're loaded with disposable income, but for the vast majority of the US it's not worth it.

mhurron 10y ago
> It's costing you future money when you paint it a 'non-natural' color in the lost prospective buyers And how is that? No one is coming to buy it while it is my home. Oh, and it was painted not beige in the first place, so apparently it didn't cost them 'future money' either. Your home isn't an investment.
stephencanon 10y ago
This is false (or at least, is not universally true, and is false pretty frequently). It's costing you some of the future buyer pool, but making it more desireable to another portion of the buyer pool: those who have similar taste to you. Because these are exactly the people who are most likely to like other (non-paint-color) aspects of a house that you also like, this is a positive trade off (unless you anticipate needing to sell on short notice, in which case, yes, be as generic as possible). Make the house you want to live in. There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it, too, and in the meantime you'll be happier.
- hueving 10y ago
  No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a house when they buy it anyway. >There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it, Sure, but not nearly as many as would want to live in it if it didn't have a purple shag carpet and black walls. Anything you do to reduce your buyer pool costs you money. You either accept a shallow pool of offers or repaint it to undo whatever it was you did to start with when you're ready to sell, which also costs money.
  - stephencanon 10y ago
    > No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a house when they buy it anyway. This argument applies equally to people who like beige, if they even exist. Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not. Of the latter group, some like bold colors. None of this should be controversial at all.
    - hueving 10y ago
      >Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not. Baseless conjecture. If what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be in the situation of having so many "blank slate" colors as the housing standard.
hx87 10y ago
Why not just repaint it in more market-friendly colors when you decide to sell it?

by hueving 10y ago

mhurron 10y ago

> It's costing you future money when you paint it a 'non-natural' color in the lost prospective buyers And how is that? No one is coming to buy it while it is my home. Oh, and it was painted not beige in the first place, so apparently it didn't cost them 'future money' either. Your home isn't an investment.

stephencanon 10y ago

This is false (or at least, is not universally true, and is false pretty frequently). It's costing you some of the future buyer pool, but making it more desireable to another portion of the buyer pool: those who have similar taste to you. Because these are exactly the people who are most likely to like other (non-paint-color) aspects of a house that you also like, this is a positive trade off (unless you anticipate needing to sell on short notice, in which case, yes, be as generic as possible). Make the house you want to live in. There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it, too, and in the meantime you'll be happier.

hueving 10y ago
No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a house when they buy it anyway. >There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it, Sure, but not nearly as many as would want to live in it if it didn't have a purple shag carpet and black walls. Anything you do to reduce your buyer pool costs you money. You either accept a shallow pool of offers or repaint it to undo whatever it was you did to start with when you're ready to sell, which also costs money.
- stephencanon 10y ago
  > No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a house when they buy it anyway. This argument applies equally to people who like beige, if they even exist. Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not. Of the latter group, some like bold colors. None of this should be controversial at all.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not. Baseless conjecture. If what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be in the situation of having so many "blank slate" colors as the housing standard.

hx87 10y ago

Why not just repaint it in more market-friendly colors when you decide to sell it?