3 ms·

As a commitment averse 30-something perpetual renter I've always felt like I was "throwing money away" by renting - but having breakages, plumping, electricity,

As a commitment averse 30-something perpetual renter I've always felt like I was "throwing money away" by renting - but having breakages, plumping, electricity, etc be someone else's problem was how I often justified it to myself. While I'm sure, like anything, the decision to rent or own is highly situational this article still gives me some hope that I haven't made every wrong decision when it comes to "build or buy".

hb3b 9y ago
I'm your age living in the NYC metro area and had the same feelings. I opted for a renovated co-op which only cost a few hundred K and has a maintenance charge under $1000/mo. that includes all utilities. By getting a co-op or condo you limit your responsibility to what's within the walls. Sure you'll have the occasional plumbing/electrical issue but for that you can hire a maintenance guy or neighbor. No need to worry about the big issues.
- GoatOfAplomb 9y ago
  I've experienced the downside of this. If there's a major issue related to your unit, but it's the association's responsibility, you're at their mercy, hoping they'll act quickly. I had a rental unit sit empty for 5 months because of a slow-moving assocation that was reluctant to admit that certain work needed to be done. (Admittedly, I think I could've gotten it resolved _somewhat_ faster if I had been living in the unit myself, or at least lived nearby.)
Bartweiss 9y ago
At the moment, I'm renting a rather nice unit in a rather old building. I suspect it would probably be cheaper to buy the place and pay a mortgage, since rent is likely to rise aggressively. But it's an old enough place that repair issues aren't just inconvenient - there's a possibility of serious damage, made incredibly expensive to address by historical preservation laws. If the owners get unlucky, they might well be on the hook for repairs costing much of the value of the house. It's been on my mind a lot, and I really can't imagine buying a place of that age and expense. Either I'd be gambling on 100 year old fixtures, or the amount of money I'd need earmarked for repairs would more than wipe out the savings of renting.

hb3b 9y ago

I'm your age living in the NYC metro area and had the same feelings. I opted for a renovated co-op which only cost a few hundred K and has a maintenance charge under $1000/mo. that includes all utilities. By getting a co-op or condo you limit your responsibility to what's within the walls. Sure you'll have the occasional plumbing/electrical issue but for that you can hire a maintenance guy or neighbor. No need to worry about the big issues.

GoatOfAplomb 9y ago
I've experienced the downside of this. If there's a major issue related to your unit, but it's the association's responsibility, you're at their mercy, hoping they'll act quickly. I had a rental unit sit empty for 5 months because of a slow-moving assocation that was reluctant to admit that certain work needed to be done. (Admittedly, I think I could've gotten it resolved _somewhat_ faster if I had been living in the unit myself, or at least lived nearby.)

Bartweiss 9y ago

At the moment, I'm renting a rather nice unit in a rather old building. I suspect it would probably be cheaper to buy the place and pay a mortgage, since rent is likely to rise aggressively. But it's an old enough place that repair issues aren't just inconvenient - there's a possibility of serious damage, made incredibly expensive to address by historical preservation laws. If the owners get unlucky, they might well be on the hook for repairs costing much of the value of the house. It's been on my mind a lot, and I really can't imagine buying a place of that age and expense. Either I'd be gambling on 100 year old fixtures, or the amount of money I'd need earmarked for repairs would more than wipe out the savings of renting.