> little control over costs (HOA, special assessments)
> more influenced by distress sales (for example, in an SFR you can argue that you have a better lot, better sunlight, etc than the distressed property across the street that just closed escrow for $50K less than your asking price – when the condo three doors down from you with the exact same floorplan sells for $50K less than yours, try telling a buyer how your condo is so much better than the distressed one and how that low-ball comp should not be considered)
> HOA tells you how to live (no junk on the balcony or patio, landscaping must be approved, no parking in the driveway, etc)
> common walls – I love hearing my neighbors {fill in the blank}
> poor construction – condos are the main reason destruction defect litigation exists
> lifestyle – looks and feels like an apartment complex
Anyone care to add to the list?”
__________________________________
These are all good and valid points, many of which can be argued both ways. With respect to a lack of control over costs, however, every homeowner can be as involved as they would like regarding HOA decisions. Everything from meeting attendance to actual board membership is possible. I believe (as the owner of 3 attached units) that the apathy amongst homeowners is evidence of a desire to not have to make the decisions regarding $$ – it is far easier to just write the check and not delve deeper and just live your life. And folks enjoy the benefit of the HOA when it comes to landscaping, exterior maintenance, roofs, etc. It’s a trade-off and not necessarily a negative.
Regarding distress sales, I would argue that a SFR in a planned community is no more immune from a low comp than an attached unit. Condos can also be differentiated by location within the complex (end unit, top floor, view, etc.) the same way a SFR in a planned community can be.
Condo owners must abide by varying degrees of HOA rules, which some folks find restrictive while others enjoy. Many folks don’t want to look out their window and see junk crammed onto their neighbors’ balcony, cars on blocks on the front lawn, a neon purple house across the street, etc.
I can assure you that poor construction is not limited to condos. There have been a large number of single family home tracts that have been slapped together and have been the subject of construction defect litigation.
As for lifestyle, we’re talking apples and oranges. Many folks like the lower maintenance lifestyle that condo living affords. Some condos are nothing more than apartments and some are very, very nice. And it’s often possible to get oneself into a better area for less money with a condo versus a SFR. That is one of the real benefits I see. And I think that probably plays into the discussion of price depreciation – ie – what will happen to the $600K coastal condo versus the $600K house in North Park (or the like)? I guess we’ll see.
Oh, and when I’m talking about condos, I’m including in my head townhomes. Just a disclaimer. Anyway, I believe most folks prefer SFRs and with good reason. My only point is that condo ownership/living is not all bad and has actually worked out quite well for me and numerous other folks in my circle. I beleive condo ownership in a great location trumps SFR ownership in a less-than-great location. The end.
