msmarjoribanks

She looked super familiar to me too, and I never watch commercials so have been googling trying to figure it out with no luck. I guess it could be a commercial.

Just watched Kansas, and I wish they'd given an explanation for 20 vs. 10, although really there might not have been one, just that's what he grew up wanting or the house they actually bought had 20. Also, if the budget was really $500K, the "$510K, over budget!" thing was silly, pricing it at $510K usually means they'd certainly take $500K, unless it was some super hot market which I doubt it was. And they got the house they bought at $40K under listing, so they knew that. The house they got actually would have worried me the most, since the issues with it were things that suggested water damage and potentially a need for a new roof (and one obvious thing to ask about/mention is the age of the roof and prior repairs, but yes that's not something usually addressed on the show). Husband wanting and being handy enough to do projects is one thing, a new roof being a project is not something I'd think was a good idea to handle in-house. But new roof (if needed) also could be a negotiating chip in getting the price down, and they seemed to be addressing the water damage themselves otherwise (I assume that's related to the ending "so far no mold"). Mostly I just find it unrealistic that they wouldn't talk about that issue and make sure they got information even before making an offer (apart from the inspection process). What I didn't get about the pond thing is that the wife seemed to think that the pond in view with the first property was fine, since not on their property, but the ponds on their properties would be death traps. If you can tell the boys not to run over to the pond just across the property line, then surely you could tell them not to go into the pond on their own -- don't know why they'd obey the one and not the other. Anyway, could see both sides in this one in that I wouldn't want a million major projects but do think the husband wanting to do them with the sons was great. And I like high ceilings/was with the wife on that one.

I just watched the Orange County one but wasn't paying close attention. The choice seemed super obvious and they didn't make it clear why that one would be lower priced compared to the others -- unless it was smaller and I missed it. I find that unless the houses are really interesting or I'm especially interested in the specific location, I prefer the ones where the HHers know they will have to make compromises for their budget and are open to that. Also, the houses they then look at tend to end up more interesting to me (maybe because I think of a housing search as involving various tradeoffs and imperfections). So (despite my lack of attention, heh!) this was more interesting than Memphis for me for that reason. The St Louis houses made that one a good one, IMO, in part because was happy to learn you could get that kind of real estate for those prices there.

That was my thought -- I don't think that's how you paint cabinets! I prefer stained wood myself, but am not bothered by them painting cabinets white if that's their preference, as presumably there's nothing special or unique about them. What I don't like is painting original wood detailing on a house white when that wasn't the original style. And I realize even that is a taste difference, but it makes me sad since it can't be undone (at least not without a lot of difficulty and maybe not at all). When I was last looking I saw a beautiful old house with amazing original detailing, and the realtor selling it said the last people to look at said they were planning to paint all of that detailing and I'm pretty sure they are the ones who ended up taking it. Oh, well.

I like granite too, personally, and find it super convenient and pretty. I've mostly realized from these discussions that I don't care that much, within limits. The two condos I owned had granite (they were mid to late '90s construction) and I liked it, but most of the things I looked at had the same (my prior apt -- second floor of an old house -- had some kind of '70s era formica, if memory serves but at that point I barely cooked so didn't think about it much). When I was looking at houses I was open to a kitchen I'd redo and probably would have gotten into the weeds of countertops and what look I wanted (I do like butcher block in some formats/uses, for example), but the house I decided on, though built in 1910, had a kitchen redone around 10 years ago and it has granite. It was neither a "must have" nor a deal breaker, and I'm not planning to redo a perfectly good kitchen to change the counters, which admittedly I like anyway. (I do have some other non kitchen things on my "will redo" list but other than some painting before moving in wanted to live with it as is for a bit and figure out what will work best.) Quartz or quartzite (I had to look this up, guess it's related to soapstone) seems really common here in new construction kitchens, along with white cabinets (or grey), and luxury appliances (Bosch and Wolf and SubZero) seem much more common than when I looked last at new construction, even in places appealing to the same people. I don't personally care for white cabinets (I like stained wood), but if that had been part of the kitchen redo I'd gotten, I wouldn't have redone that either, at least not for years and years and only assuming the money was no object. What works for a kitchen of course depends a lot on the overall look. For example, the idea of a vintage '60s kitchen with formica sounds great, but formica would look terrible in my current kitchen.

I don't think HomeAdvisor is really cutting edge. Neither are the HHers, so that's why it seemed fitting.

I just watched one (don't know if it was new) with a couple looking for a house in "rural Vermont" (really just outside Montpelier). I went to college not too far away, so loved seeing the area and houses, and was surprised at how cheap they seemed to be even with acres of land (the first place). All the houses were interesting and IMO appealing for different reasons.

Yeah, the budget made total sense given all that. I liked the realtor a lot, she made more of an impression on me than the couple, although they seemed nice enough and well-suited. It was a little boring to see 2 people, no challenging needs, somewhat boring wants, way more money than required for the area they were seeking. Liked seeing the houses, though. I spent some time in Memphis due to work some years ago and liked it, and would enjoy going back and seeing more of the neighborhoods.

Just got an email from HomeAdvisor with an article about how granite is going out of style (which is not news, but made me think of this thread!). After the headline the article said that granite is still one of many solid choices, so, you know, headlines. In style for counters, apparently: quartz (I've noticed this locally, and I believe it's coming up on HH's more and more) wood soapstone concrete stainless steel

I'm sure lots of people (even smart people) don't know how it works. I was talking about it with a friend who has watched it as a vegging after work/before bed kind of thing since well before I discovered it, and she thought they'd actually agreed that they would choose between only 3 houses and wondered why anyone would do that/what they were compensated for that. She'd just never thought about it much or looked into it (and assumed that some people were fame whores enough to do that, even for such a limited TV appearance). She wasn't outraged when I filled her in, though. She said "that makes a lot more sense." When I started watching I knew they were supposed to have purchased a house already, but assumed at first they were showing houses they'd actually considered, until I realized how difficult that would be to set up (and also started reading here, of course!).

I found the place they bought -- seems to be in a neighborhood called Compton Heights, not too far from Lafayette Square, which is where I was seeing some other similar houses in my quick redfin search. The first one is still for sale, looks like it's in DeBaliviere Place. The busy street was Grand Blvd. (I will repeat my usual plea that it would actually be interesting for me if they talked about the neighborhoods and how they differ when that's a difference that affects housing prices, and just because I think it's an interesting thing to hear about when looking at cities I don't know.) https://www.redfin.com/MO/St-Louis/3555-Longfellow-Blvd-63104/home/93691143 https://www.redfin.com/MO/St-Louis/50-Waterman-Pl-63112/home/93724355

I liked it too, although I agreed with the guy who thought it was going to be a money pit with all the stuff they wanted to do and furnishing it and so on. Although I think he came around to the idea that it would be fun for them, and I bet it will be. I wouldn't want something that huge but I'd love to get a cool old vintage mansion that actually is in decent shape for those prices, wow. Did a quick search of redfin for St. Louis, and it looks like that is the market, at least in some areas, and not areas that appear to be problematic. Second house wasn't MCM, but I'm not sure Ted (was that his name?) really wanted MCM vs. some kind of mid-century house that felt comfortable (which really seemed to be his thing) and had a lot of windows (the one thing that was at all MCM-ish that he mentioned). Personally, I had no clue what MCM was 'til I started watching Restored and now I can appreciate the style when well done, but I think it's kind of trendy now and gets used incorrectly (even apart from my theory that HHs tells them to pick a style from certain key words and go on about it). Around here anyway it seems that every furniture place is about about MCM style (even though houses generally aren't remotely MCM, at least not in the city or most of the 'burbs I know), and I've noticed it being trendy on Houzz and so on too. That Tad didn't go see the middle house on the show seemed like a tip off that they weren't picking it. I have to admit that overdone as Justin's shtick was I liked them and thought they would be fun.

I wonder if it's hard to find the decoy houses, as it always seems weird when they go with one that the person obviously won't pick (way out of the price range, 2/1 vs. 3/2 (assuming they could afford a 3/2), completely wrong neighborhood, stuff like that). Plus, when they've shown searches in areas I know I often think there are better options available (the couple of times I've seen them show houses in Oak Park I recall being befuddled by the house chosen to show, and those were both decoys). One thing that drives me crazy is when they show a house exactly where the person wants it, but a bit small/without all the amenities for at the top end of budget or over and then a house that's FAR below budget and huge with more than the person even asked for (something like 5 bed, 4 bath, an acre of land) that's far from the desired location. I always wonder if they couldn't find some compromise (which of course is the benefit in real life of looking at more than 3 places). No garage with a house would be an issue for resale here, but you'd also get it cheaper, and could add one. If I didn't want one (I did, though) I'd buy one without if I were planning to keep the place long term.

Yeah, I was coming here to say something similar and knew it had been talked about. Apparently their real budget was something like $650K or $700K, since they went with a $425K house (originally $410K) with $250K in planned upgrades. So why not say that and look at houses based on that budget (the others were, but were presented as way over budget, especially the last), and then explain why they chose the rehab one (or even, gasp!, look at others they would rehab, since that's what they decided to do). Also, more clarity about what they would get by moving vs. their other house would be nice -- I'm sure there were issues with the other place not addressed (some reason they couldn't add on or rehab it -- they did allude to a lack of lot size), but they didn't address it. Also, more discussion of specific locations (vs Naperville) might have been nice. Were they all basically in the same place and just different based on size and style and amenities? Or were they in distinctly different areas? (I've been to Naperville since I live in Chicago, but have managed to know very little about it. It's probably not actually full of identical (and equally desirable) subdivisions as it seems in my head. I'm sure some areas are better for various things and it does exist in two different counties.) That third house was ridiculously huge (and so not my style). It made me think (in contrast) of a cottage I looked at when looking recently -- 4 upstairs bedrooms (all pretty small) with one bathroom, one other bathroom downstairs. Two of the bedrooms had a jack and jill closet, and yet the family selling (father was retiring, kids all grown up) had raised 4 girls there. Most of the HHers would faint at that prospect.

Yes! I just wrote about this show and knew there were other comments about it somewhere. My strong suspicion was that there was more to the location (it seemed more downtown) than the hockey thing, and the other two houses seemed quite inconvenient for commuting potentially. Of course that wasn't quirky enough, so they had to go on about the hockey thing. And I'd forgotten to comment on the wifi thing, which was super weird and seemed like part of the husband's efforts to be a HH personality (I actually think he seemed probably fine in real life, and I think his wife finds him funny, but he wasn't as amusing as a character as he thought -- not believable).

The "yuck, someone used it before" thing was really weird. I get told all the time that Chicago is super reasonable compared to many big cities, but of course it depends on what you want (and neighborhood) and what you are comparing it to. (Last conversation was with someone from Seattle, so yeah.) Brand new construction is going to be more (and agreed about the cabinets), and even with slightly older (which they weren't interested in, I guess) you are going to pay for having the newest, trendiest kitchen design, which is what the wife wanted. You are also going to pay for things like a private roof deck and parking, which wasn't mentioned at all (the final place probably had garage parking, maybe 2 car, middle place might not have had parking). $1300 in a high rise likely includes utilities, plus the cost of the doorman, elevator, so on. In the other buildings it includes common maintenance only, and their utilities would not have been included. Second one was higher than the third because it was vintage, and of course it was bigger. Agree that they should talk about what it provides, and I was at least glad the husband said at the end that the supposedly "highest" price was really the lowest when they added in the HOA. Buying for a couple of years seems pretty risky given transaction costs, costs of moving, etc., but with brand new construction selling sooner (I'd say in 5 or less) is more likely to preserve the value. One thing I hate about new construction (just as a personal thing, I get why it's popular) is that there's a built in depreciation.

Yes, exactly. I almost wrote something similar. I wanted an older house, in some neighborhoods that meant Victorian or maybe American 4-square (which I love), in some it's going to mean Chicago bungalow or some other 1940s or 50s house, and where I bought that mostly meant frame workers cottage (which is probably not a style most seek out looking for, to the extent it's a style at all, but I think my place is really cute). And because these are all folk styles, you get workers cottages from the Victorian era with certain Victorian qualities, ones from the 1910s with some arts and crafts elements and other mix and match. And I knew what the standard lot size was, so did not express surprise that I could see my neighbors! ;-) I am also going to sign on re the fake drama -- why do they need to pretend the couples disagree deeply when most of the time that's not the issue.

I always wonder if they are given a list of styles and housing terms and told to use some. I am skeptical that everyone really has strong opinions on what architectural styles they like to the point of using the terms and demanding that houses they are shown be of that style. (Even setting aside the misuse of the terms by house hunters and their realtors.) Also, the show definitely plays it up -- the Florida one we were just talking about in the regular HH thread had the narrator saying at one point that the couple was unable to agree on bungalow vs. ranch, when that had nothing to do with what they were actually saying about the houses. I do know plenty of people with strong opinions about old vs. new or frame vs. brick or multi-story vs. not or even (in a few cases) Chicago bungalow vs. not (since around here that's such a particular and known style), but far, far fewer who insist upon a "Georgian" or "a ranch" or "a mid century modern."

Yay, I finally saw a show that others are talking about. I liked the couple. Mostly I liked how they were realistic about the fact that their budget meant they might have to compromise some and while they wanted a bunch of stuff they weren't obnoxious about the fact that it wasn't easy to find a place that met all their desires. And they realized they could live with something less desirable for a while and then remodel/add on a bit later. That they had quirky and less cookie-cutter likes in some ways was fun too. I was surprised by the house they chose, but am wondering if the new studio they were building had actually been started already, as there seemed to be a detached building in the back yard they weren't discussing -- I wondered if I'd seen it wrong and it was the (attached) garage, but it didn't seem so. I didn't care enough to look back to check, though. It is interesting to see different markets and prices, and refreshing to see one where $200K was described as "so much money!" for a house. The one I saw before this one was St Paul, MN -- guy wanted to live by the hockey rink and make the back yard into an ice rink, and pretended to lie down in the showers. I thought I saw discussion of it earlier (when I was still just lurking), but couldn't find it. Anyway, that one bugged me a bit because I thought the guy was actively trying to be a House Hunters character. (I liked the wife, though, and they seemed happy.) They took the house I preferred, and although the hockey proximity was all they discussed I suspect there was more to the location.

I've been watching on hulu and youtube, so can't always keep track of when the episodes aired (it gives a date, but that's not always consistent with when the show was talked about here). Anyway, was just watching one supposedly from 4/30/18, called generically Condo Hunting in Chicago (Drake and Jillian), and the place they chose was in the first building I owned in, which was pretty cool (I love being able to recognize addresses, so you can imagine I love all the extra knowledge I have here, heh). Granted, I owned way back in the late '90s to early '00s -- the place was converted in the mid '90s, so of course the wife thought it was dreadfully dated. My place was quite a bit different, a 2 bed, 1 bathroom without the second level and decks they got, and back in the late '90s I really liked the bigger units in the complex and wished that one would come available when I was ready to sell (had changed my mind when I did decide to sell). Oddly enough, I actually preferred some of the things about my old place -- the kitchen wasn't as small as that one seemed just due to placement. Some of the style was similar, some was not. The floors were exactly the same as I remembered (I loved the floors when I bought). Episode otherwise typical House Hunters. I wish they didn't think that discussion of the neighborhoods would be boring, as I don't buy that they don't play a role in choice (well, I know it's not a real choice, and often you can tell what they will pick because only one is the neighborhood they actually want). The "old" building was the mid '90s one, but they tried to play it as old vs new (the first one they looked at was described as a rehab, but it looked like every contemporary building in the area and they didn't give any actual dates if it was supposed to be vintage).

I bought a house recently, and one of the places I looked at (I didn't make an offer, but it went fast with multiple offers) had a washer and dryer in the kitchen. The basement of that place had a really low ceiling (the owner had storage and a wine cellar down there), so that's probably why it wasn't down there -- they were also handing out information on the cost of digging out the basement. Most of the other washer dryers were in the basements, which is where mine is. In my prior place (no basement, 4th floor walk-up condo), it was in an area for it by the guest bathroom. A few of the places I looked at had hook-up options upstairs by the bedrooms or in a couple of cases the washer dryer up there, and I got the impression that was seen as beneficial by some since people didn't want to be carrying clothes up and down (that's how it was sold). I wanted a basement laundry area with room for stand-alone washer and dryer and a sink, however, as I was tired of having it crammed into a small space. I've never seen it in a garage, but where I live most garages are unattached if you even have one.