msmarjoribanks

I don't inherently mind a mix and am glad Allison has some interest in old details, but the way it's executed is terrible (but not uncommon). Bucktown/WP, much like LP and Lakeview and much of the nearby northside (Lincoln Square, North Center) have a lot if old workers cottages. Now the only people who can afford to buy SFH in most of these areas are people willing to deal with major remodels, developers, and people who want custom homes (and all better off who want larger places with more bedrooms and bathrooms than they came with). So the workers cottages get knocked down or remade so they are unrecognizable. This is not at all unique to Allison. Some of Allison's stuff is silly to me -- turning a working class home into a fancy London apt and thinking it fits because of the era -- but I'm glad she cares about preserving some of the old stuff. Admittedly I'm biased since I bought an old workers cottage in north Lincoln Square that had been rehabbed to modern preferences (not complaining in that the bedrooms and bathrooms are much more convenient than they would have been, and the place bigger), but want to bring some aspects back to what they were. But that doesn't mean marble fireplace just because the era is the same, instead I'm trying to research what might have been here and figuring out the elements that fit.

That he actually knew and cared about the craftsmanship made up for her focus on more "in style" things for me. Anyone see Grand Rapids? I know the area a bit, which always makes it more interesting to me, although I didn't know the location of the houses. The Christmas lights thing was one of the sillier quirks but they didn't play it up as much as I expected. I would have liked the middle one with some reno'ing, but I expected they'd take the last with his lack of knowledge or interest in reno'ing and her also wanting new build, and realizing they could wait until they had more money to make the improvements and increase the number of beds/baths was sensible enough. Her "''92! that's old, that's when I was born" was slightly annoying (although she didn't bother me in general, and I relate to her not wanting cabinets to the ceiling as a 5' person -- I'm 5'3). However, even if I weren't (relatively) old, I'd think considering a 1992 house old was odd, mine was built in 1910 and I love it, and for me the backyard of the second place was a plus and I would not want to live in a brand new subdivision with the backyard of the place they got. But I did think it seemed a good fit for them. Except -- and this is a normal except -- paying what they did for a house in Grand Rapids at their age, when employed as a teacher and youth minister, is puzzling to me, but of course that's one of the things everyone says about the show. (I live in Chicago, so it's not like western MI is some high cost market I can't relate to, as I always think when they do some other places.)

Yes, all of this. I wonder what the deal was with the realtor not seeing house #3 with them, and the focus on the brochure there. Wife and her obsessions were annoying (ooh, columns in the bedroom!), and (without knowing anything about the locations), I did not like the 3rd. I liked the first the best, although (despite liking older places) "antebellum" (which none of them were) would never be my thing, and nor are 4000+ sq ft houses.

I liked the Raleigh couple, and figured they'd go with the second place. I liked the location and style of the third one, but it did seem too small for them, close to the top of their budget, and without remodeling to do that would add to the value (although I liked that the husband thought about the value of the location). The second was a good compromise with style and location and it seemed like the things like didn't like were easy fixes, especially as the husband knew what he was doing.

Totally agree with this. I almost never use my microwave, so the slightly annoying location would have worked better for me than getting rid of the hood. Bloomington -- I liked the second one due to the location, but it was seriously over budget and I don't think renting out the carriage house would be that pleasant given the location and hassle. I predicted they'd do the remodel -- the third one just seemed too far out, among other things. I'd like to see the reno.

I get wanting a somewhat bigger bathroom when sharing them, but with some of the huge ones it seems such a waste of space that would be better used in other parts of the house.

2/18 rerun from Rapid City, South Dakota. I actually liked all three houses, but they got the one I expected due to the great outdoor area.

The skyline buildings are in the Loop, and until recently there wasn't a lot of housing right in the Loop, although some is close, and some closer in areas (West Loop, for example) are currently very possible (and there are lots of well-known lofts in places like the West Loop and Printers Row). Since they are talking city vs. burbs, however, "right in the city" could easily mean lots of areas that are that far away from right downtown, like Lakeview (home of Wrigley Field, among lots of other attractions), Bucktown, North Center, etc. I feel like I should be able to place that building, but am annoyed that I cannot (not a huge loft buff, so will blame that). Yup, as someone in Chicago I'm aware of South Haven as a fun place to go for a weekend getaway (not similar to Branson).

Berwyn's a good thought. I thought maybe Oak Park (it wasn't that cheap given how tiny it was) or Park Ridge.

I saw one place that was being sold by a single father whose sons were in college, so he was downsizing. It was an old house that had been rehabbed, including turning the former attic into a master suite with bathroom. However, perhaps because he was a single guy, he hadn't bothered putting a wall up between the bathroom portion of the room and the bedroom. (I guess perhaps he never had women over? Dunno, but it was pretty funny.)

I was just coming here to complain about the lack of information on the new Chicago episode. You can't show places in the Chicago area and not mention the neighborhoods or burbs and have it mean anything. It was also ridiculous that the realtor was going on about the third place being cheaper because it was in the burbs and not noting that it was also smaller and I couldn't tell about parking (the first place had a 2 car garage, as well as some other features not mentioned). The area the first one was in looked familiar, so when they picked it I found it -- Edgebrook. Cool location right by the forest preserve, but very family-centric, and definitely a NW side suburban feel. Location is easy bus to blue line (but that would be close to an hour) or -- what was referenced -- drive to train. The Metra Edgebrook stop is about 1.3 miles away. I liked the place they got, it was my definite pick of the 3, but I don't think I'd choose to live in that area although it has its pluses and it was cool to see the area featured. (I like to bike around there.)

This was a repeat of a Chicago episode where the dog decided. In that one they made a point of saying the owners had all okay'd it. I assume the same here, although I cringed when he was outside and then running around inside while dirty (although he was super cute). Did anyone watch the Ann Arbor rerun? (I should find the comments from the time, but accidentally deleted the date.)

I thought they were going to pick the last house too, but it was over their budget. I know they didn't really even see it when looking, but I do think the $400K was probably a hard stop, and that the first ended up being quite a bit lower was a plus. I really hope they had a good inspector and hired a specialist who could check out all the scary-looking water marks. I get being burned if you had an expensive problem with the last house, but don't get thinking what they saw is no biggie since, hey!, it passed the silly marble test. (None of the houses on my street would pass the marble test, but not because of foundation issues but because they were not built to adjust for the slight slope here back when they were built over 100 years ago.) I think the can't have toilet in the same room as shower was her made up quirk for the show, but it was annoying -- if you need a palatial master look at new houses. Wanting to paint the bannisters white bothered me too, but oh well. The whole thing about how she really wanted a ranch so might go with the small second one with the shared bathroom was ridiculous too -- no one really cares about style that much. (HHers seems obsessed with casting people who supposedly want a house exactly the style of the one they grew up in or grandma's, which seems odd.)

I just watched this, and was shocked about the one they chose. Google maps said that the one that wasn't great but was where the wife grew up was 30-45 min from Manhattan, the first one with the pool (which is what I expected them to take) was about an hour, and the one they did take was like 1.5 hours. Terrible, and the difference in the houses would not be worth that for me (I liked the first house better, personally). Hope there's some kind of good public transportation. Watched the NYC one too -- crazy (although not unexpected) how much places were. I found it very interesting and for once liked the diversity of areas being shown (Midtown, Brooklyn, and Harlem).

Now Houston -- some really nice houses, but expensive.

Watching some reruns. Clemson, SC, Sacramento, and Tampa. Prices are much more reasonable.

I own a house in Chicago built in 1910, and researched the history. The first owners both died between 1930 (when their 3 children were still living with them) and 1940. In 1940, their older daughter was living their with her husband and her younger sister, and their brother was living a couple of miles away. The older daughter (then a widow) died in 1993 and left the house to her (then married) younger sister, who owned it until she (as a widow) died in 2004. So the same family lived in the house for 94 years. It seems that neither of the sisters had children and the brother moved to Florida. The neighborhood the original owners were living in before moving here was the same area the son lived in in 1940. I think this kind of thing was more common in the past.

Yeah, it was bugging me that they weren't more specific about the locations, since I know that area some.

I finally watched this one (I haven't been watching for a while, just too much else going on, and had to catch up on the Chicago ones first). I thought this comment was puzzling -- I guess she meant she wanted them painted white, but that's an easy fix. Otherwise, no clue what else she would mean. That aside, I really liked the HH (the cousin was annoying, but clearly playing a role), and as a Chicagoan I enjoyed seeing properties in Kenwood, Bronzeville, and Edgewater (and when I last looked I looked a lot in Edgewater, although I bought in Lincoln Square). I was surprised they didn't show her a no-chance high rise in the South Loop like the cousin was pushing for, just because they often do that. Beyond the weird closet door comment, the HHers comments were quite similar to the ones I would make. I thought the layout of the kitchen in the re-done place was weird, mainly the way the breakfast bar was slanted and too small, and that was part of the reno, so not due to vintage. Also, the granite becoming the backsplash is a look I personally hate, so I'm with her there. The distance to the rest of the house was due to vintage, but that was mainly the cousin having issues. I predicted she'd go with the first (faux vintage or not -- and I too would have preferred real vintage). Ultimately between those three places the issues are (1) neighborhood (all fine neighborhoods, so a matter of preference); and (2) price (I really liked the third one, but there's a big difference between the assessments if you aren't someone who really wants a high rise elevator building). That said, the first place that she went with really did have a great cook's kitchen from what I saw. My kitchen is fine, but still I was envious.

I rolled my eyes at this one. I actually thought the first one (the RE agent suggested it was aged at 2001 which is idiotic) with the pool was perfect for them (it had minor projects they could have done before moving in, paint the cabinet, install the pot filler thing, the island was fine), but it was farther out than they wanted (I wonder if they were kicking themselves when looking, since we know they were already under contract). I also loved the charming Lexington 1880s place that had the best location, although it was much less practical. I thought the one they got had no character and was going to be really close in to their neighbors. I'm close in to my neighbors, but I'm in a city where my 30x125 lot is bigger than the standard. If I were in a basically suburban new construction area, that would be a deal killer.

Yeah, agreed. Often people buy/rent a small place assuming they will sell when they marry, so wait. He probably decided he just needed to go forward on his own, wanted to stay in the area (it's a nice area), and just get what he wanted, which meant a place with a big bedroom (workable with a spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend if that happens, or if gf/bf is just tv adverse), an office, a cool roof deck, and the kind of open entertaining space and new fixtures that I can see appealing to a single guy. It's not what I'd buy, but if he wants it, good for him. I'm glad he didn't get extra bedrooms for the SIL. That place (barring an economic turndown) should hold its value for 10 years before he has to update seriously, so if he marries and has kids he should be fine.

I think I read somewhere that they require two people.

Yeah, agreed. I live in Chicago and the market isn't that crazy, it's all about what and where you buy. Lincoln Park is expensive, but even more than that, new construction with the latest finishes and the fancy oven and an upgraded roof deck is rarer, so has a big premium. (I have zero interest in a place like that, so makes it easier for me.) You could also get a 3/2 (as opposed to a 2/2) in Lincoln Park for significantly less than he spent.

He said he'd lived there 18 years, so I assumed 39 at minimum.

I thought it had potential. I had assumed based on how they presented it that the second was by far a more convenient neighborhood, but no, not necessarily, this one was reasonably close to downtown, as well as some nature areas. I think some of the prior remodel was questionable, but if they are willing to address it over time it's not hard to fix.