Opinions Sought on House in New Development Area

[kenmoremmm]

In another thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/opinions-sought-on-house-layout/msg2816727/#msg2816727), I was asking about opinions on a property that is existing.

We're having some doubts on it and our buying options are limited. There is a new development area (total size 600 acres) that I think will probably take another decade to fill out. What you get there is a lot with .25 acre size, standard bread and butter new construction house with good heat/energy efficiency, and a neighborhood that will be bland and unoriginal. There are some planned walking/bike paths that kind of skirt throughout all the developments. No parks (that I see). You will drive to most things (5 mins or less, but still always a drive).

So my question: have you lived in one of these developments and what did/do you think? I have always viewed them as shitholes and not somewhere I would enjoy. I feel like it would be soulless and an endless neighborhood of yuppies and dick-measuring alpha dogs. I could see, however, it attracting more young families compared to the otherwise generally old areas of town we have been looking at, so that's a plus for us (kids aged 4 and 2).

[chemistk]

I haven't personally lived in one but most, if not all, of my friends from school lived in various flavors of these developments. More importantly, my in-laws live in a nicer one (but ultimately still a development).

There are two flavors of developments, especially around where I live (mid-Atlantic).

Flavor #1 (my in-laws live in one of these) is a little pricey, but the houses are all not quite cookie-cutter. A lot of them have some semblance of character, and many are built to take advantage of the terrain of the lot. These are often ones where the houses are built over a longer period of time and by a mix of developers, so you get some stratification of houses as you go through the development which makes it feel less 'blah'.

Flavor #2 (most of my school friends lived in these) is basically a huge piece of farmland that's clear-cut and built out by one developer with about a 50/50 mix of 'custom' and out of the box homes from no more than 6 floorplans that generally all look the same. There's typically little to no uniqueness to terrain and the homogeny can make walking through confusing.

I have experience with both -

The cons, from my point of view:
-You'll be living in a construction zone for years.
-Until the saplings mature, the only thing you'll see is an endless field of roofs (about 15 years).
-It's entirely hit or miss who you live near. Some people are really great, and personable, and can make good neighbor-friends. Others can be reclusive or worse, standoffish and territorial.
-Depending on the land, you may be dealing with post-construction woes (foundation repair from ground settling, issues from construction, etc.)
-You have to drive everywhere, especially if you're more in the country (and 600 acres seems to suggest you would be) - there's no opportunity to walk downtown/to a park/to the store
-As time passes, the first wave of homeowners tends to not do too much with landscaping and maintenance, so in about 10 years the houses won't look quite as nice
-You will probably only break even at best if/when you sell

The pros:
-Standard building pros (you choose finishes/features, you have a better sense of the house and where problems could occur, you're the first ones in there so no weird stuff)
-You really won't have to worry about big expenses (roof, HVAC, etc.)
-It's super quiet, especially if you're not on the main 'artery' street
-Chances are high that other young families will move in too, and your kids can all grow together

I definitely wouldn't classify most subdivisions as shitholes, but they're also not for everyone. As you can see by my lists above, I wouldn't generally choose to live in one but it's really also completely dependent on location. If it's out in the middle of nowhere, then that's probably a no from me. But, if it's in an interesting area that seems like it would grow over time then I'd definitely at least consider it as a viable option.

[the_hobbitish]

I grew up in one, but don't live in one now.

As a kid it was great. We lived on a cul-de-sac and our house backed to woods. There were lots of neighborhood kids to run around with who also went to my school. We could safely run wild through the whole development and games were often transitory through different streets and kids' homes. Our neighbors on one side were really standoffish - not a big deal to a kid but probably was for my parents. The homes in our neighborhood were pretty cookie cutter, which I wouldn't like now but didn't care about then. The things that made that neighborhood great IMO were the woods and number of other kids.

My opinion is very different as an adult. Not moving into an established community means you have no idea the culture of the neighbors you'll get (although you might be able to discern this somewhat by talking to people who live in similar neighborhoods in your area). It might be great and you have a really close-knit community of other parents or you might get a lot of Joneses and stay off my lawn types. I also remember my parents complaining about the HOA which I now understand and avoided when I bought my home.

Ditto on not wanting to live somewhere with ongoing construction. It means noise and the safety concern of lots of people who don't live there coming through the neighborhood. Along with the standard issues of construction debris and potential popped tires from nails etc getting into the road.

[zolotiyeruki]

Mass developments with a handful of volume builders can be great!  We live in one, and there are some real positives.  For example, the developer had to plan for sidewalks/bike paths, drainage, roads, etc.  The elementary school is in the development.  There's a community pool and sand volleyball court, and tennis court, and clubhouse with a workout room and other amenities.  The roads are planned so that only a few houses have driveways that land on the main artery street, and the neighborhood is laid out to discourage through-driving by non-residents, without inconveniencing residents.

That said, there are a few things I'd recommend you look out for:
1) Quality of materials.  Our sheathing is some sort of MDF, which turns to dust at the sight of any raindrop that manages to penetrate the house wrap.
2) Quality of craftsmanship.  All the penetrations through the exterior walls in our home were basically unsealed, so lots of air got through.
3) Energy efficiency.  Don't accept a checklist of "extra insulation in the walls and attic."  When it comes to energy efficiency, air sealing is at least as important as insulation, and is a lot harder to accomplish.  The devil is in the details, like sealing around electrical penetrations and ceiling light boxes.
4) Attention to detail in the layout.  Our house looks great inside and out, but there are aspects of the layout that just don't make sense.  There are lots of unused/unusable square feet, and rooms that are oversized for their purpose (like our master bedroom and bathroom).  The secondary bedrooms are large, but in each one, you can only place the bed against one wall without blocking a window or door or closet, and so they feel much smaller.

[seattlecyclone]

Ditto on not wanting to live somewhere with ongoing construction. It means noise and the safety concern of lots of people who don't live there coming through the neighborhood. Along with the standard issues of construction debris and potential popped tires from nails etc getting into the road.

It's not as though brand new subdivisions are the only place you'll need to deal with construction nuisance in your midst. My neighborhood was first developed a century ago and you can see two construction projects from my front window. One is a small house that was demolished to make room for a larger one (with a secondary cottage in back), and the other is an old house that is being fully refurbished after a period of relative neglect as a rental property. They finished a down-to-the-studs remodel of the house a few months ago and are currently renovating the garage. Last year my next door neighbor did some pretty significant work on his house (repainted the exterior, replaced the fence, some work on the interior), and the year before that the people across the street gutted their house and added a second story.

Once a brand new subdivision is complete you can maybe expect a couple decades where not much needs to happen. After that, stuff ages, and it's probably a worrying sign if you're not seeing neighbors working on their houses to bring them back up to good condition.

[MrMoneySaver]

So my question: have you lived in one of these developments and what did/do you think? I have always viewed them as shitholes and not somewhere I would enjoy. I feel like it would be soulless and an endless neighborhood of yuppies and dick-measuring alpha dogs. I could see, however, it attracting more young families compared to the otherwise generally old areas of town we have been looking at, so that's a plus for us (kids aged 4 and 2).

Welcome to America! Eventually you have to accept that this is how our country is. People choose these developments not because they are alpha dicks and such, but because they are often the best of all available options. Safe, convenient, good schools, low-maintenance.

I would love to live in a 300-year-old house in the center of some quaint English town. I'd love to commute by subway system. But that's not the way my life turned out.

I lived in a slightly upscale development and it was a dream come true for my kids in their primary years. They could not have asked for a better childhood.

Embrace the bland housing development!

[Kris]

I lived in one of these from 13 to 18, and my parents lived in that house for years after that. I despised it for all the “con” reasons you listed. I found it soul-crushing. I would never buy a house in an area like that as an adult. But that’s just me.

[NextTime]

I lived in one of these from 13 to 18, and my parents lived in that house for years after that. I despised it for all the “con” reasons you listed. I found it soul-crushing. I would never buy a house in an area like that as an adult. But that’s just me.

How did it crush your soul?

[chemistk]

I lived in one of these from 13 to 18, and my parents lived in that house for years after that. I despised it for all the “con” reasons you listed. I found it soul-crushing. I would never buy a house in an area like that as an adult. But that’s just me.

How did it crush your soul?

I can't speak for Kris, but some of my friends really hated living in those subdivisions. Some of them had no kids their age within the sub, and if you wanted to go anywhere outside of the sub, you had to be driven - there was just no realistic way a kid without a car could get anywhere so there were plenty of days where they were bored out of their minds.

One of my friends lived in a house with a small yard and the neighbors were huge 'Off My Lawn!' types, so he really couldn't play outside at all.

Plenty of reasons why living in a sub like that could go sour for kids as opposed to a traditional neighborhood.

[robartsd]

-As time passes, the first wave of homeowners tends to not do too much with landscaping and maintenance, so in about 10 years the houses won't look quite as nice

Not only that, but the relatively homogenous nature of the houses leads to many buyers in the same phase of life. As they move on to the next phase of life and sell, the neighborhood demographic can shift significantly. The types of families that bought the majority of the first wave aren't still buying in the neighborhood; they've moved on to a new ring of suburban sprawl.

[seattlecyclone]

I lived in one of these from 13 to 18, and my parents lived in that house for years after that. I despised it for all the “con” reasons you listed. I found it soul-crushing. I would never buy a house in an area like that as an adult. But that’s just me.

How did it crush your soul?

I can't speak for Kris, but some of my friends really hated living in those subdivisions. Some of them had no kids their age within the sub, and if you wanted to go anywhere outside of the sub, you had to be driven - there was just no realistic way a kid without a car could get anywhere so there were plenty of days where they were bored out of their minds.

This. The low density development pattern means that anyone who can't drive is really restricted in what they can do. While many people like to think of cars as a tool to give them the freedom to get to places outside walking distance, in these suburbs they're more of a prosthesis to help you compensate for the fact that walking distance includes essentially no destinations of note. Lack the ability to use this prosthesis and you're profoundly disabled indeed.

My parents moved us to such a subdivision when I was in middle school. The nearest businesses of any kind were a mile away, the nearest supermarket was two miles away, the high school was three miles away, and the public library was four. All those distances are technically bikeable, but doing so is hardly pleasant. All the neighborhood streets were designed with numerous curves and dead ends to frustrate through traffic, which leaves the sidewalk alongside the 45 MPH arterials as the only real option for bike travel outside your own subdivision. At least the arterials had sidewalks. Most residential streets didn't. I was lucky enough to avoid anything bad happening while biking as a teen, but my dad (whose office was on the other side of the same suburb) liked to commute by bike in nice weather and was hit by cars at least twice.

For all that parents worry about living in the city due to the prospect of danger from crime, I think the added danger from suburban travel isn't really appreciated for what it is. I remember at least one student at my high school died in a car crash on the way to school. A good friend of mine was involved in a serious crash that her sister in the back seat took months to recover from. I'm not sure if she ever got back to 100%. This is just par for the course when you build your city where people live far enough apart that inexperienced teen drivers need to drive at high speeds to get to much of anything.

[robartsd]

For all that parents worry about living in the city due to the prospect of danger from crime, I think the added danger from suburban travel isn't really appreciated for what it is. I remember at least one student at my high school died in a car crash on the way to school. A good friend of mine was involved in a serious crash that her sister in the back seat took months to recover from. I'm not sure if she ever got back to 100%. This is just par for the course when you build your city where people live far enough apart that inexperienced teen drivers need to drive at high speeds to get to much of anything.

In addition to discounting the increased risk of transportation related dangers, I think the protection from crime fis also overestimated.

[MrMoneySaver]

For those who don't like subdivision developments, where do you live instead? Let's say you have kids, and you want them to go to highly ranked public schools, and also you don't want to take on huge home maintenance/renovation projects. In the most sprawling metro areas -- like Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Atlanta -- the non-subdivision options become pretty limited.

[seattlecyclone]

For those who don't like subdivision developments, where do you live instead? Let's say you have kids, and you want them to go to highly ranked public schools, and also you don't want to take on huge home maintenance/renovation projects. In the most sprawling metro areas -- like Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Atlanta -- the non-subdivision options become pretty limited.

I live in a neighborhood within the Seattle city limits that was originally developed a century ago. We have an old house on a tenth of an acre, and we have sidewalks. Within a 10 minute walk there are 15 food service establishments, three convenience stores, two public elementary schools, a preschool, a very large park, a community garden, a senior center, a yoga studio, a tattoo parlor, an antique shop, a laundromat, a veterinarian, two dentists, a psychology practice, a chiropractor, and various other professional offices. Expand the radius to 15 minutes and you add two public libraries, two supermarkets, two more parks, a few banks, many more restaurants, and a bunch of other things.

I have two young kids. The oldest is starting kindergarten next year. While the schools in our neighborhood have lower numeric rankings than certain suburbs in our area, they're still quite good. Every parent needs to decide for themselves how much stock to put in these ratings. My personal opinion is that beyond a certain level, any difference in rankings is more a reflection of how wealthy the parents are than how good the teachers are at their jobs. When certain places have banned the types of housing that non-wealthy people can afford (apartments, duplexes, single-family homes on small lots), it's no surprise that these places tend to have wealthier residents on average, and that their kids perform better on standardized tests.

[E.T.]

For those who don't like subdivision developments, where do you live instead? Let's say you have kids, and you want them to go to highly ranked public schools, and also you don't want to take on huge home maintenance/renovation projects. In the most sprawling metro areas -- like Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Atlanta -- the non-subdivision options become pretty limited.

There are other options like new townhouse developments that are more walkable. I moved to one last year that has tons of restaurants / shops, daycares, senior centers, medical /dental facilities, a grocery store, and a movie theater within a five to ten minute walk. There are a bunch of satellite townhouse developments around this town center type area and there's also a public transportation connector stop that I could use to get to downtown. I know of at least three similar town centers in this area, seems to be a growing trend. The only thing I'm missing is a public library, that would be nice. I live in a dense metro area and this was the best option for me considering price, space, and walkability. The school district is rated well too although I don't think that's as important, personally.

[SunnyDays]

I think a lot depends on the size of the town/city you’re moving to.  Subdivisions in larger cities can swing two ways; in one case, it’s like a small town unto itself, with lots of amenities, in the other it’s all houses and nothing but.  I grew up in the first kind, with grocery stores, banks, etc all within a short walk.  I currently live in more of the second kind in a smaller town.  More residential within the immediate area, but still walkable (15 minutes) to downtown.  The newer subdivisions here are on the outskirts though, and not really walkable to anywhere. 

Your best bet is to know exactly what type of neighbourhood you want and let the realtor find that for you.  Then look for somewhere to live.  Even renting something less than ideal for a while until you make some contacts might be okay.  Then you won’t end up buying something/somewhere you’ll regret.

[FINate]

For those who don't like subdivision developments, where do you live instead? Let's say you have kids, and you want them to go to highly ranked public schools, and also you don't want to take on huge home maintenance/renovation projects. In the most sprawling metro areas -- like Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Atlanta -- the non-subdivision options become pretty limited.

I live in a neighborhood within the Seattle city limits that was originally developed a century ago. We have an old house on a tenth of an acre, and we have sidewalks. Within a 10 minute walk there are 15 food service establishments, three convenience stores, two public elementary schools, a preschool, a very large park, a community garden, a senior center, a yoga studio, a tattoo parlor, an antique shop, a laundromat, a veterinarian, two dentists, a psychology practice, a chiropractor, and various other professional offices. Expand the radius to 15 minutes and you add two public libraries, two supermarkets, two more parks, a few banks, many more restaurants, and a bunch of other things.

This is a near perfect description of our neighborhood in Boise. Plus we are just 1.5 miles from the heart of downtown, and have 200 miles of hiking/mountain biking trails are just down the street. Things are laid out on a grid and it's mostly flat, so getting around by foot/bike is a joy. We hardly drive at all anymore. I love it.

It's really unfortunate that the US continues with the twisted/cul-de-sac neighborhood development. People want walkability and bikeability and proximity to services/amenities that a grid layout provides.

[MrMoneySaver]

People want walkability and bikeability and proximity to services/amenities that a grid layout provides.

Not easy to find in the Southeast, in my experience.

[FINate]

People want walkability and bikeability and proximity to services/amenities that a grid layout provides.

Not easy to find in the Southeast, in my experience.

Not easy to find most places. Which is sad, and that's the point. Our neighborhood is expensive because older grid layouts are somewhat rare while also being desirable. Yet for some reason we keep building sprawl in huge disconnected pedestrian-unfriendly neighborhoods. To be sure, many people actually prefer such configurations, more power to them I say. But many don't, so it's a shame that very few (if any?) new developments embrace the grid for those who value that way of life. Too much institutional inertia, I suppose.

[chemistk]

For those who don't like subdivision developments, where do you live instead? Let's say you have kids, and you want them to go to highly ranked public schools, and also you don't want to take on huge home maintenance/renovation projects. In the most sprawling metro areas -- like Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Atlanta -- the non-subdivision options become pretty limited.

I think this is 100% situational. I've been through areas like that, where the sprawl is pretty much the only thing around. At that point, it becomes your best option and is definitely worth looking into. Especially if you have kids, the subdivisions in sprawled-out areas are actually probably better because that's where you're much more likely to find young families.

Now, I would have more pause if you're looking at a new build in a new subdivision - that's where you start to get back into the 'negatives' list (at least for me, personally) that I mentioned in an earlier post.

[robartsd]

It's really unfortunate that the US continues with the twisted/cul-de-sac neighborhood development. People want walkability and bikeability and proximity to services/amenities that a grid layout provides.

The twisted/cul-de-sac neighborhood development seems primarily about controlling through traffic. They're optimized to live the auto-centric lifestyle while minimizing the impact of the traffic on your own home.

[FINate]

It's really unfortunate that the US continues with the twisted/cul-de-sac neighborhood development. People want walkability and bikeability and proximity to services/amenities that a grid layout provides.

The twisted/cul-de-sac neighborhood development seems primarily about controlling through traffic. They're optimized to live the auto-centric lifestyle while minimizing the impact of the traffic on your own home.

Agreed. But there are ways to achieve traffic calming without making things a disconnected auto-centric mess. In grids cars avoid and/or drive slower on narrow streets with lots of stop signs, which also encourages through traffic to prefer arterial streets. Twisted cul-de-sac neighborhoods can improve walkabilty by planning for direct walking/biking paths within the neighborhood, yet this alone is insufficient. Surrounding retail/neighborhoods must also provide shortest distance connections to create a contiguous network. This happens automatically in a grid, whereas intentional design standards are required for the convoluted mess of modern neighborhood design. The real problem is that alternative modes of transportation are mostly an afterthought and or viewed as "recreation."

[robartsd]

The real problem is that alternative modes of transportation are mostly an afterthought and or viewed as "recreation."

Typical urban planning in America seems to be: When people finally do start thinking about transportation other than cars, there is not enough space to put the infrastructure required to make most people feel safe using it. The car-centric lobby complains that taking away travel lanes will make traffic even worse, so a compromise is implemented. The implementation is usually compromised enough that very few people actually use it. The car-centric lobby uses this lack of use as a reason to block further public investment (generally blind to the huge subsidy that private automotive use gets in the form of infrastructure maintenance).

[legalstache]

We bought a house in such a development a couple years ago. Our experience has been great. The biggest perk for us is the neighbors--most of the people moving in are young families like us, so there are lots of kids around and by and large the neighbors are totally friendly. I think the neighborhood is much more social than it would be if we'd moved into an older neighborhood where people had lived in their houses for 20+ years.

I do sort of hate the unoriginality of the houses and have mixed feelings about these types of developments in general, but for us our house made total sense. Having a new house with virtually no maintenance is also a big plus. We are additionally fortunate in that we're not totally out in some godforsaken car-dependent area. We can walk to several parks, a shopping center, and there are bike trails nearby. If we were totally out in the middle of nowhere, I don't think I'd do it.