Recycled House by DRW

I love writing about little house plans, or residential architecture in general. Yet it takes some research, on my part, to find new home designs, links to great sites, and then time for me to organize my thoughts into legible paragraphs. I keep thinking that I’ll set aside one day a week for house plan posts, but with my limited amount of time, this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

But with that being said, I did find time this week to research some ecofriendly house designs that I thought were interesting.

• Circular home designs - Deltec Homes: I’ve never been a big fan of octagonal or circular homes. I just didn’t understand the purpose to them. However, I found the Deltec site that explains it. In so many words, the point of them being there are no “load-bearing” interior walls allowing for just about any floor plan layout. Their roof acts as the supporting beams, so the modifications to the interior are endless. I can see this being a huge factor if one wants a very open floor plan. The only drawback I see to circular homes is that many of the walls are curved. This would drive me crazy placing furniture against them.
• Passive Solar Designs – The Plan Collection: Passive solar is a up and coming word these days. Basically, if you design the house with enough light and windows pointing in just the right direction, you can heat your house naturally. This would save money on your gas bill during the fall and winter months. Though, I would worry about the summer months in warmer regions, like say, Arizona! You don’t want your house acting as a sauna.
• More Passive Solar Designs - SunTerra: I like the fact that SunTerra explains the point of a passive solar home and includes the importance of overhangs for shade. They also calculate how much money could be saved on heating a house passively, approximately 1/3 overall. Their home plans include explanations of how each home’s architecture reinforces green building ideas such as a zero energy home and an earth sheltered home. I also learned the purpose of a flatter pitched roof:  it decreases the interior volume improving the energy efficiency.

As a more critical consumer, many house plan sites I come across boast about “green building.” But to put things in perspective, green building really boils down to being resource efficient. The more recycled materials, the less stress is put upon the environment. My all time favorite home builders is Phoenix Commotion: taking one persons junk and turning it into another person’s treasure.

I have to say that this past decade has been full of ups and downs. However, I’m glad that with those downs it limited the amount of credit that lenders extended to me. For instance, at the end of 1999 and early 2000, I made a bunch of really bad financial choices. These bad choices negatively affected my credit. My bad credit limited the amount of credit that was offered to me. So with this past decade’s housing boom (and bust) and easy credit terms, these things just weren’t available to me to mess up even more. And, it gave me time to really learn why it’s important to have good credit, how to get good credit, and how to keep my credit in good standing.

My bad choices in the long run were really silver linings in a sense. I know many people, younger than me, who were extended a lot of credit through credit cards over these past 10 years. They maxed out their credit cards at a whopping $29,000 and are now in a lot of trouble. The most credit I was ever extended, right before I completely dug myself into a hole, was $5,000. Before 2000, most credit card lenders were more cautious with their credit limits. These limits were thrown to the wind sometime in early 2001/2002 at the start of the housing boom. Everyone thought they could use their homes as ATM’s and pay off their massive credit card debt. Why not? Their home value would increase exponentially forever, right?

Wrong. I remember in 2003, a friend of ours had just gotten a dream job as a mortgage broker. Handing out ARM’s to people with sketchy credit made her a fortune (sadly she lost most of it right before the bust.) At the time, she said that because there were people like her to hand out loans to just about anyone, home values would never go down. Her managers saw no end to the housing boom. My husband and I were just flabbergasted that homes could possible continue on their upward movement. In 2005, a small fixer-upper was going for $525,000, we just couldn’t see why anyone would pay that much or more for such a place. We just didn’t believe what we were hearing.

Thankfully we didn’t buy into that trap. There was a moment where our mortgage broker friend tried to convince us to buy property on a 5/1 ARM loan. She really believed that home values would remain constant or go up. It’s not like we were predictors of the future, we just couldn’t figure out how to pay for a half-million dollar property. The skyrocketing values just didn’t make sense, and I’m one for common sense (most of the time.)

This decade of minimal credit made me pay for things in cash. The small credit card bills that we had 15 months ago have all been paid off. Our last remaining debt (besides a student and car loan) is a line of credit. With hard work, crunching the numbers, and determination I should be able to tackle it within 18 months.

What things did you learn this past decade? Are there anythings that you would change? What would you do differently?

Reminiscing about my first obsession with residential architecture, I remember the copious details I added in the exterior of a house I drew on my chalkboard. Drawing with colored chalk was half the fun, but the house itself best identified with a ranch-style layout: it was horizontally long as opposed to vertical in height, I added a brick trim to the base of the house, and large windows to the front. The reason this was the house I decided to draw was based on my reality, all the houses in my neighborhood were modified ranch-style homes.

Now that I’m hoping to become a home owner in the near future, I’m researching homes for sale. And what style house am I finding? Mostly modified ranch…shocking. Living in suburban Southern California, the ranch-style home became the norm. Its design was based upon Frank Lloyd Wright architecture: low roof lines, horizontal fronts, lots of windows to let the outside in. Many communities in my neighborhood were designed by some well-known ranch-style architects like Joseph Eichler, Cliff May, and Gilbert Leong. These homes were known for their open floor plans, many contain atriums, and some have radiant heat under the flooring; quite modern for their 1950’s and ’60’s build date.

In my neighborhood, the majority of the homes were built between 1940 and the 1960’s. The architecture tells quite a story and I can almost see how the shape of homes morphed from one decade to the next. For instance, my block was built in 1951 and 1952. Using an online digital library, I found an old brochure advertising our community called Meadowlark Park. I’m pretty sure that most of my neighbors have no clue that they live in a community with such a name. There’s not a single placard anywhere stating that this is Meadowlark Park. Yet, the brochure went on to describe the houses as ranch-style homes with “massive chimney’s” (they are really very small in today’s standards), a “garage-and-a-half” (these single-car garages will barely house a mid-sized SUV) and “country living” in the valley. Oh, if only they developers had known that the valley would soon turn into a little city unto itself!

But these homes were larger in comparison to those built 10 years earlier and 3 miles south of where I live, a difference of 300 square feet. The ranch-style home was in the making; 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, it was a home owner’s dream come true. As the 1960’s approached, the true ranch-style homes emerged through Joseph Eichler and Cliff May, taking on architectural attributes similar to Frank Lloyd Wright. These homes were gigantic in comparison to the homes built in the 1940’s and ’50’s, almost twice the size in square feet (around 1,800 to 2,400 sq. ft.) They included an open floor plan, large patios with sliding glass door entries into the back yard, and many even incorporated atriums to really bring the outside in. The idea was to incorporate outside living in temperate Southern California.

The 1970’s homes are similar to the 1960’s, there is still a “modern” ranch feel to the architecture, think the Brady Bunch house. However, the homes of the 1980’s, mainly found on the perimeter of the valley, began to stray from the ranch-style floor plan and design. They became more heavily stuccoed, the features are larger and a little heavier in feel, many of the homes of the 1980’s have wood shingles or tile roofs. Over the past 20 years, residential architecture has moved far away from the ranch homes of the mid-century. Today’s homes are modified Mediterranean style homes with red tile roofs, two story floor plans, and a more vertical use of land, mainly because land is so limited in our urban-suburban neighborhoods. The ranch floor plans are still preferred by many, however they can only be found in older homes that often need more work than a newer model.

Here is a sampling of homes for sale ranging in age:

Ranch Style Homes

As I continue my house hunt, I’m sure I’ll see many variations of the ranch style house. I have to admit, it wasn’t my favorite style until I researched the architects and ideas behind the design. Now, I love ‘em!

Part of my 3-step plan towards owning a home was to increase my credit score this year. Well, I’m glad to say that I’ve definitely done that! I’ve partly accomplished at least one of my goals, raise my score above 700, and feel darn proud of myself (and my husband who really worked on this part). Each bureau is now reporting a score in the “good” category, an excellent is now above 760. Early in the year, my credit score was a measly 581, a ghastly poor score. And that 581 was the highest out of the 3 bureaus (see the graph below). With determination I’ve raised that score more than 100 points (one credit bureau is closer to a 200 point increase).

A look at my credit score progress over a year

How did I do it? Well, it did take a little luck in the sense that many of my negative items were set to expire this year being over 7 years old. However, most negative items don’t just fall off, they need to be disputed once they reach that 7 year mark. My husband has been incredibly diligent in making sure to mail in disputes to all 3 bureaus, then checking to make sure the negative items were actually removed the next time we pulled my report. I only have two negative items affecting my score now. The first negative item is that I don’t have a long enough credit history. So only time and age will improve this part. The other negative item is that my total credit available is small, only 2 to 3 credit accounts with small credit limits. Improving this part is a little tricky. If I apply for too many accounts, that will negatively impact my score. For now, I think I’ll wait a few months before deciding to apply for another credit account.

Another way I improved my score is by making sure that my 3 credit accounts remained in good standing. They are all paid off, so every couple of months I charge a small amount on them, to keep them active, then pay them off in full before finance charges accumulate. As long as I continue with this, it should build a solid payment history; a large part of a credit score. It’s how lenders view how responsible you are with your bills. A lender often uses payment history to decide to grant you a new loan.

The one, big, kahuna that really impacted my credit score was getting my student loans out of default this year. That was a biggy! I made 9 on-time payments to a student loan rehabilitation program and it is no longer showing up as a negative account. I am now making monthly payments to AES (American Educational Services), and this should soon build a positive payment history. Now, my husband is trying to figure out how to ask the credit bureaus to report them as one account, because currently they are listed multiple accounts, making my credit report a little bit of  a mess (and hard to read!).

Now a few notes about my scores from the 3 bureaus. You’ll notice from the chart that I’ve color coded the bubbles: Gray is the Equifax score, Green is the Transunion score, and Light Blue is the Experian score. Early in the year, Transunion was posting the highest score, and that score has risen 125 points. However, Experian has raised my score the most and is now the highest at 727. They raised my score 194 points in a year! Equifax has been plugging along and remain the lowest of the 3 scores. I don’t really know if one credit bureau is more important to lenders than another, but the end result is that my credit has gone from poor to good in less than 12 months. I’m stoked!

What has been your experience with credit score improvements? Do you know if one bureau is more important to certain types of lenders than another? Have any of you had a similar situation with student loans where they are listed a bunch of times and have been successful in getting them to report as only one or two accounts?

This year, my husband and I will be digging in our heels with the idea of fulfilling our home ownership goal. We couldn’t have picked a more opportune time; housing prices have finally come down to more reasonable levels and mortgage rates are quite low, historically in fact. Five years ago during the peak of the market, we thought we wouldn’t be able to afford a home in Southern California for many years, possibly not until we reached our late 40’s or early 50’s. We were fine with that, owning a home wasn’t on our agenda. Paying thousands of dollars a month for a tiny plot of land in a fixer upper just didn’t sound appealing. But, times are a changin’!

The homes in our area are still on tiny plots of land and require a bit of TLC, as many seller descriptions mention. But, the houses are literally two-thirds to half the price they were compared to 2005, and the mortgage rates have remained steady hovering around 5 to 6%. I’m also feeling positive since a few of the homes in our price range, the mid to high $200,000, are pretty cute and may not require as much work as we had originally planned. Here are some of the most recent homes surrounding our neighborhood that on the market, you’ll notice they are small, but quaint:

A cute little house for $225,000

Another little house for $240,000

A slightly bigger home, but not much, for $285,000

Based on these home prices, using the Quicken Loan calculator, our monthly mortgage payment would be between $1,291 to $1,785 including taxes and insurance. That’s anywhere between $15 to $509 LESS than our monthly rent! These figures are based on homes ranging from $225K to $285K with only $15,000 down.

Of course there are many unknown variables such as we may not qualify for the lowest finance rate. We also are working on saving up for our down payment, so predicting that $15,000 down may not be very accurate. Another factor that may change is that by the time we are ready to purchase our house, which will most likely be towards the end of the year, the interest rates may rise. Below is a historical chart showing that interest rates on a 30-year fixed mortgage haven’t been this low in the past 10 years.

Historical Mortgage Rates for the past 10 Years

Obviously, the sooner we can submit offers on homes, the more likely we will be able to lock in a low mortgage rate. Over time, the amount of money that can be saved on finance charges can quickly add up. For instance, below I’ve outlined how much interest will be paid on a home loan of $250,000 at various rates:

• 5% APR: total interest paid over 30 years – $233,139.46
• 6% APR: total interest paid over 30 years – $289,595.47
• 7% APR: total interest paid over 30 years – $348,772.25
• 7.5% APR: total interest paid over 30 years – $379,293.06

Whoa! If we don’t qualify for the 5% loan, we end up paying more in interest over 30 years than the actual cost of the home! Using Bankrate’s amortization chart,  the majority of mortgage payments go towards the interest for the first 17 years of home ownership. This is why it is so important to shop around for the best mortgage rate. These figures also explain why so many people who purchased their homes at the peak of the market are upside down on their loans; not a position I envy.

With careful planning and homework, my goal is to be a responsible home owner by the end of 2010. An obtainable goal if I stick to my 3-step plan!

My obsession with residential architecture seems to grow with age. Or, perhaps it’s because I still don’t own my own little house. However in my quest to own my own place, I have come across some fantastic little cottage plans along the way. Some of the plans I’ve encountered are from architects building communities in other states, so purchasing the plans is my only option at this point. Other plans are kit homes my husband and I have discussed as an alternative to buying an existing or older home. The more I search, the more amazing alternatives I come across. (In my next life I think I’ll be an architect!)

Ross Chapin is one architect that I admire. His housing communities are well thought out and the house plans are adorable! Too bad I don’t live in Washington. My favorite house plans fall in the small house plan category, homes between 1,300 sq. ft. and 2,800 sq. ft. Though the larger square footage, 2,800 sq. ft.,  I wouldn’t consider small. The Kaleah and Vinnlee plans are my favorite, each house has a sunroof or two and a fantastic front porch. The Vinnlee has a slightly more open floor plan that I like more so than the smaller Kaleah plan, but I’d be thrilled living in either home. All of Chapin’s plans are for sale. His website also offers PDF files for examination before purchase, this is smart. I have little experience building my own home, but I would think you’d want to run the plans by a contractor before purchasing to make sure the layout would work on the existing lot.

Another option my husband and I have discussed is buying a kit home. It seems a like a slightly easier and less expensive alternative to building our own home from scratch. There are so many choices today, but I have listed a few of my favorites below:

• Michelle Kaufmann’s Glide House – This prefab house incorporates sustainability. The price isn’t too bad, but it is one of the more expensive prefab homes I found. Square foot average cost is $145 per sq. ft.
• Maple Homes – This prefab home company has some great designs, I especially like their Craftsman houses. The only downfall is they are based out of Canada. I’m not sure what the pricing would be to deliver to Southern California. Square foot price up to $60 per sq. ft. which is 1/3 of the total build price, according to their site. Not bad if the total price ended up at $90 per sq. ft, much less than anything where I live.
• Marmol Radziner – Has some great modern looking prefab homes, think Frank Lloyd Wright in design. The price isn’t bad, $179,000, for the smaller Rincon 5 series, but the larger Skyline series seems a little steep starting at $500,000.
• Cottage in a Day – Small cottage cabin, reasonably priced, can be put together in a day! I personally like the larger model, 2842 T, and I think you can add to it looking at the picture on the contact page.
• Lowe’s Katrina Cottage – Originally designed to replace the temporary housing in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit, these kits are apparently being purchased as regular homes as well. The price is really affordable.

As much as I love the idea of building a brand new home or kit home, finding the land where I live is a little challenging. I might just have to settle for an existing older home and renovate it. I found a cottage retreat in Venice that inspired new ideas for doing just that: Venice Beach Eco Cottages. I might have to talk my husband into booking a weekend retreat to check out the cottages.

Have you completed a major renovation on a house? Have you built a house from scratch? Any information on these topics would be helpful!

One of my childhood dreams was to live in a tree house. Of course, this may be because I didn’t have a tree house growing up as a kid. I was lacking a tree house not because I didn’t have any trees that could support the weight or structure, but my parents were quite cautious.  My stepfather was a firefighter and sort of felt it was unsafe; *think broken arms, legs, head, etc.

Climbing up into a little house in a huge, luscious tree sounds fairytale like in some ways. So many childhood novels are based around adventures that take place in a tree house, and this seems to be the inspiration behind some current tree house designs.  To indulge my inner child, I’ve been reading ThisTinyHouse.com.  Hillary writes about tree houses every Monday morning. Here are some of my favorites from her blog:

• This tree house was built in 3 days for a photo shoot. I’m not sure if the family decided to live in it after the magazine was finished with it, but it could definitely be used for summer camping.
• This German tree house also could be used as a weekend retreat.
• Here is a tree house I think you are able to rent out (it’s a little unclear if you can only visit it, or actually rent it for a night or two). The owner of the property turned his 20 acres into a nature preserve and built a couple of tree houses.

Children's Summer Camp Tree House

While browsing another one of my favorite blogs, Inhabitat.com,  for new prefab models, they too had an incredible post about a tree house. This particular tree house was donated to a children’s camp. Not only does the water slide look really fun, but the tree house was also built to be “environmentally sensitive.”

Looking at some of the interior images, it reminds me of Robinson Crusoe’s tree house at Disneyland, another famous novel that incorporated tree house living. Perhaps this new interest in tree houses will grow into an alternative housing movement, especially as land becomes less available to people  in land-locked areas. If tree houses started popping up as an alternative in my area, I would definitely check it out.

Actually, if the home market continues to rise and becomes too expensive by next year, I may have to look at alternatives to owning my own little house, like purchasing land.  I might need to begin investigating land with really strong, large trees!

I’ve always had a curiosity about how a once rural section of town transformed into a suburban area. What was the initial motivation to create suburbs? How did city planners affect the overall layout? Why did they choose a grid layout?

I live in the San Fernando Valley. Once a place of idyllic ranches owned by Hollywood’s elite actors and actresses of the 1930’s and 1940’s. It was a place where the famous could wind down and get away. Howard Hughes filmed the 1920’s film Hell’s Angels out of the Van Nuys airport (then called the Metropolitan Airport). Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo owned a ranch along side Barbara Stanwick and the Marx Brothers. Clark Gable and Carole Lombard’s Encino ranch wasn’t far from the original Tarzana ranch (owned by the creator of Tarzan), which is now the city of Tarzana. Brochures touted the beautiful Twin Lakes community, a community which no longer has a lake, in northern Chatsworth, off the 118 freeway. Calabasas, in the 1930’s,  was being sold originally as an artists colony. Now it is filled with multimillion dollar homes owned by very wealthy business owners, few artists can afford to reside in such a place.

How did it become the suburban metropolis that it is now? What happened to those original homes and ranches? Why didn’t it retain some of it’s communities original plans? There, of course, is a very long history to the San Fernando Valley area beginning with the native Tongva peoples, and the building of the San Fernando Mission during the Spanish mission period. Yet, the beginning of the suburbs start around the early 1900’s.

Prior to 1913 and the building of the Los Angeles aqueduct, the valley was very dry, a semi-arid topography that couldn’t support a huge population. After this aqueduct was completed, there was a huge boom in housing developments. Automobiles and the development of freeways helped connect this valley area to the greater Los Angeles area, an already booming city.

I found a terrific link, an article written by Charlotte Laws, Ph.D., that clearly states the problem with suburbia, or at least the Valley. Here is an excerpt from her article:

“As Los Angeles’ pastoral backyard, the Valley seemed an ideal place to realize these new notions of metropolitan community. Yet ultimately Los Angeles failed to capitalize on them. Some Progressive ideas were incorporated into the development of the older sections of the City—as the parks west of downtown will bear witness—but by the 1920s, these increasingly began to fall by the wayside. The costs of the aqueduct, and other infrastructure, were part of the problem; so too was the desire of developers, in the Valley as elsewhere, to maximize the profits on their land.

As a result, Los Angeles grew, and the Valley most notably, with a shocking lack of parks, green space or attractive public areas. The developers ignored the advice of city officials to designate parklands for their subdivisions, and by 1928, parks took up a mere 0.6% of the City. Later attempts to re-fashion the City—notably the 1930 Olmstead Plan—that would have placed park, river, and open space development at the center of the city plan, never materialized.”

This, of course, explains part of our suburban problem here in the SF Valley. My guess is that it’s not only here that we experience these problems, but in many suburban areas. Suburban areas seem like an after-thought.  A city doesn’t project their population growth accurately, then struggles to catch up with it, only to realize that their plans forgot something. That something they forgot to do is create parks and roads that are pedestrian friendly, land-locking the suburbs within their concrete grid-system.

So what happened to those ranches owned by the late actors of the 1930’s and 40’s? Some of them got razed when developers purchased their land only to build a few hundred homes. Others got re-purposed, for example, there is still an old home sitting at the western corner of a small intersection, that has been turned into a special education school. Supposedly, it was the home of Will Rogers.

Barbara Stanwick's / Jack Oakie's Northridge House

There is one home left, that of Barbara Stanwick (then owned by Jack Oakie), that still sits on its original, untouched, 11-acres. It was sold this past year, but I’m not sure to whom. About a year ago, it had been sold to a developer, but that developer had run out of money to build. My husband and I went to the property and jumped the fence (yes, we were trespassing!). I’m curious, what can I say?! We peeked in the windows of the home, it had looked like it had been redecorated in the 1970’s with blue carpeting. The dark wooden floors were still intact and in good repair. The small 3-car garages and flagstone bricks were all in good shape. The pool was also taken care of, nice and clean, with a large chain-link fence surrounding it (to keep people out). The tennis courts below the house looked a little worn. The rolling 11-acres were overgrown and brown at the time of our visit, due to lack of rain.

Luckily, I did some research and found that the home is land marked, meaning it can’t be torn down. Only time will tell what will happen to that remaining 11-acres sitting between a Honda Dealership and the aqueduct.

My husband and I love watching movies at night, thanks in part to Netflix, it’s really easy for us to download a new or older flick. However, we have noticed a disturbing trend in movies, even those that are 20 years old or more. The characters in films, whether they are broke, middle-class, or wealthy, have beautiful homes. It doesn’t matter if the character in the film has a high paying job, or a minimum-wage salary, or is out of work, they somehow own a substantially-sized home. How can this be? Basically, as my husband so eloquently put it, the film industry is selling us the lie of the American Dream.

Let me begin by saying that I know a few years ago, with the whole mortgage fiasco, many people were able to purchase a home well above their financial means. So, perhaps 20 years ago, it was a similar situation, which is why we also see this trend in older films as well as newer ones. I know films also exaggerate life, and films only want to show us what we want to see. According to tinsel-town, the American public wants to see all families living in  large, beautiful houses. So, the lie perpetuates because we want it to.

Yet, it got me thinking, is this American Dream something that is a reality for most people? Does the film industry take the majority of the population’s living situation and just expand it for all it’s characters? I did a little homework on BestPlaces.net to check the percentages of home ownership across the nation in a few different cities and this is what I found:

• First, I took a look at Los Angeles, CA, since this is the county I live in. The home ownership rate here is 37%, compared to the national average in the United States of 64%. Okay, so this makes sense considering the high cost of property. What doesn’t make sense is the recently released movie, Smother, (a really bad movie, by the way) showing a young couple owning a beautiful Craftsman-Style home in Los Angeles on a beautiful tree-lined street. In this movie, the character’s include a wife, that is a teacher (we all know that teacher’s aren’t wealthy by most standards), and a recently laid-off  husband, who goes back to selling carpet. My take: Selling the American Dream by Lying. (Two other movies off the top of my head with similar scenarios that take place in LA: I Love You, Man and Big Trouble : outrageous homes on a small income).
  
• I then compared Fargo, ND, whose home ownership rate is 45%, to the national average of 64%. One of my favorite, slightly older, movies is Fargo. According to BestPlaces.net, less than half of the people in this city are homeowners, so again the reality of all the movie’s character’s living in a terrific home is off. My take: Selling the American Dream, though the freezing cold winter’s may keep some people from settling down permanently.
• A more realistic view from a film that I like would be Singles, a movie about single people living in Seattle (again a film from the early 1990’s). The characters in this film all rent apartments and struggle to meet a life partner and pay the rent. According to Bestplaces.net, this is a more realistic view with the home ownership percentage at 45%. My take: A realistic perspective of young 20-somethings and early 30-somethings trying to keep their heads above water and get their life figured out.
• Another city I compared is Albuquerque, NM, with a home ownership rate of 56%. I recently watched Sunshine Cleaning, set in Albuquerque, NM. The film stars the lovely Amy Adams (from Enchanted). The house the main character owned was quite a fixer upper, but it made sense considering she was a single mom who cleaned houses for a living. My Take: a much more realistic version of life, which is refreshing in a film.

Sunshine Cleaning - a more realistic life view coming from the film industry.

Of course, I’m not quite sure where Bestplaces.net came up with the national average figure of 64%. Each city I researched, and there were quite a few others that I didn’t list, kept coming up around the 50% range. There must be one state in which the majority of the population owns homes, but I didn’t find it.

Do any of you notice this in films you like? Do you ever find yourself sneering at the characters saying, “How did you afford that lifestyle and that house on your meager income?” Do you think the film industry is purposely selling the American Dream or just trying to lift our spirits and give hope to those that haven’t achieved it yet? I’m I being too cynical, or obessing over this topic?

This weekend  I called my step-mom to catch up. She is currently enrolled in school to become an acupuncturist, which is quite interesting. She’s always sworn that acupuncture can cure just about anything, now she is learning the medical craft herself. Within our conversation, she mentioned my step-brother (her son) building a house within the next year in Colorado on some land he purchased a while back. My step-mom lives in New York, and I have to be quite honest, has no clue about money or finance. She briefly mentioned that he and his wife had looked at a model home they really liked and wanted to emulate. Her description of the model home was that it looked like a multi-million dollar home from where she comes from, New York, but in Colorado it would probably be about $700K or $800K. That got me thinking, is it really that expensive in Colorado? I don’t really know, because I live in Los Angeles, the second most expensive city after New York, according to Forbes Magazine.

So, I decided to research a few metros across the nation. Within my research, I stuck to my price range, which has been creeping up lately, that I feel comfortable with: $300,000. I also only checked Zillow.com, since I was running out of time to cross check against other real estate sites. Based on what my husband and I make annually, this $300,000 figure is above the 2.5 times our income estimate, a good base figure. What I found was surprising, but I wasn’t completely flabbergasted. As a disclaimer, I also don’t know the particulars about the neighborhoods that these homes are located in, so the homes may look grand, but the neighborhoods may be sketchy for all I know.

Here is my summary, the photos follow below:

• Northridge, CA (where I live) : $309,900 – Slightly older neighborhood, home built in 1952. 5 bedroom, 3 bath (however, the garage has been converted into one or two of the bedrooms) no square footage available, but judging from the photo, and what I know about these homes, maybe 1,300 sq. ft.  FIXER UPPER.
• Denver, CO: $300,000 – Built in 1890 (an old house, so this one may need some upgrades!) 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 3,440 square feet. This one doesn’t look like a fixer upper from the interior photos on Zillow.com.
• Dallas, TX: $299,900- 4 bedroom, 2 bath, 3,736 square feet, no build date and no interior photos. I’m not sure if this would need some work or not, exterior looks nice.
• Raleigh, NC: $299,200 - 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2,900 square feet, built in 1989. The interior and exterior look immaculate, no work would need to be required except personal choice. Very large lot in my standards, over 10,000 square feet.
• White Plains, NY (the closest I could get to Manhattan without going into the Bronx): $299, 900 – 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment, 750 square feet, built in 1987. So, I guess I am luckier than those who live in White Plains, at least I would get double this square footage!
• Colorado Springs, CO (where my step-brother and his family plan to build a house): $300,000 – 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 2, 789 square feet, built in 1998. No interior photos, so again I’m not sure if this would need major repairs inside. The exterior looks nice.

Again, I’m basing this off what Zillow has in their database. I know nothing of these neighborhoods, so maybe, like Detroit, MI, the homes are inexpensive and large, but the neighborhood is really bad. Here are the images to go along with my above descriptions:

Northridge, CA in comparison to Denver, CO homes for sale

Dallas, TX in comparison to Raleigh, NC homes for sale

White Plains, NY in comparison to Colorado Springs, CO homes for sale

Based on these comparisons, Raleigh, NC or Denver, CO look like the best places by far. What do you think? Did I miss something in my comparison? Should I have also focused on crime rates in each of these neighborhoods? Do you live in an overpriced or under-priced gem of a city?