Cute Solid Looking Stone House on the Outside....
When I was in Portugal, my perception on many things about my life changed.
One of those perceptions was all about homes.
In Portugal, they all seemed very interested in how big the houses were, and what they were made of.
Don’t ask me why.
But now I definitely understand better why people who come over to North America are so disenchanted with our homes here in Canada.
I never understood their whining and complaining about it being made out of wood, being crap, etc.
I mean really, weren’t ALL homes made out of wood? 
(Where I grew up, our house was not made out of wood, but stone, marble and concrete. But it was so many years I had lived in Canada that I had forgotten about that little detail until my mom reminded me.)
And the general comment was:
What? Your homes in Canada are made out of WOOD?
Seriously?
And they cost up to a million dollars for WOOD?
You are just paying for wood shacks we build for animals!
That’s for people who cannot afford a real home.
The emperor has no house, people.
I was taken aback with that comment at first.
I felt immediately defensive, being Canadian and all. I had to stand up to this barrage!
I also explained that it wasn’t close to the wood shacks they were talking about for animals…… but after a while, I realized that they had a valid point, and I’m going to go over why.
Totally made out of wood, inside.
Here, homes are made out of chipboard, tacked together with nails, and covered with a facade of brick to make it look like stone or brick, when it really isn’t.
Only the foundation is made out of concrete.
Edited Note: Tigerlily in the comments made a great point about distinguishing between “wood” and “wood” (and citing shoddy construction of new homes).
Chipboard to me, is not considered wood.
The wood pictured to the right –> is wood, but it’s cheap wood that just isn’t cured properly, cut too thin and not anywhere CLOSE to those huge logs of wood you see very old houses made out of.
So please keep in mind that when I say “wood”, I mean chipboard & cheap wood, not those huge, logs of solid, well-cut & cured wood.
Then I thought about the costs of a brand new home made mostly out of wood for the walls and the upstairs.
Maintenance costs are 3% of your home’s value each year to repair the roof, the walls, things that leak, break, fall apart, etc.
And if your home costs on average, $250,000, is $7500/year.
So I did some very, very rough math (not taking into account interest rates, mortgage, inflation, and all that), and in your lifetime if you purchased the home early on, you would basically have paid for the home all over again just in maintenance costs alone.
$7500/year x 34 years = $255,000 paid in maintenance costs
Only the homes that are very large and need a more solid foundation such as condos, or very large, expensive mansions made out of marble or stone don’t apply.
Maintenance seems to be a non-issue
In Portugal, and I am assuming in most of Europe (someone please correct me), it is mostly stone, brick or concrete that homes are made out of.
I met a family who had the home passed down by their grandparents, and in the 40 years that it has been standing, the home was still solid.
They had never done a single bit of maintenance on the home in 40 years.
All the owner mentioned that he wanted to do, was he wanted to clean the roof a bit but he didn’t really care, because it was just the appearances, and not structural.
The 2000+ year old Roman Built Bridge in Portugal
And they had running water, electricity, washing machines, dryers, and a fully functioning, “normal” North American-like home.
The only difference was that the walls were about a foot thick made out of brick and cement.
I also saw Roman-built bridges, 2000+ years old, still strong and sturdy as the day it was built.
Sure, it looked a bit old, but the arch and structure were SOLID.
You would need a truckload of dynamite under the arches to make it fall.
But, but, what about the weather!?
This is something I can’t definitively answer because I just don’t know.
I do know that they don’t get as nasty of a winter as in Canada, but they do have all four seasons in Portugal.
But when I asked the question, they told me just to think about it.
If you had a piece of chipboard beside a piece of stone, which one would stand up to the elements better?
I sputtered.
I told them the home was NOT just all chipboard, but a facade in brick and stone that also protects against the elements.
Home passed down through the generations. No maintenance, still standing.
Regardless, they insisted the foundations of the home, and what the entire home is made out of, matters.
They said: Just because you don’t see the chipboard or the stone underneath, doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.
Then I thought some more about it and I came up with this analogy:
I guess it’s like wearing proper undergarments underneath a very tight or form-hugging dress.
If you don’t have the proper foundation garments then everything starts to look cheap, awkward and strange on the outside.
Stone just simply holds up better than wood, period.
Nothing eats stone except for water and thousands of years of wear and tear, nothing except a raging, crazy-ass fire will burn stone down, the house stays cool in the summer and with some rugs here and there, and the winter is cosy too.
The only exceptions I could see is a truly solid wood home. I’m talking about a home with logs for the walls. That might be a worthwhile home to invest in, because log homes are amazing, and won’t burn as fast (in case there’s a fire) as a chipboard home.
Looking at my own family..
Chipboard actually exists underneath all of the cute facade of stone
In contrast, my parents paid $350,000 6 years ago for a small home in Toronto.
Granted, it is Toronto, so for the size they got it was pretty darn good.
They already talking about having to replace things in the home, about the wood floor squeaking, the outside getting worn down and a possibility of termites in the structure.
My brother paid $500,000 for a home in a smaller city, which would be close to a million in Toronto, and that is ALSO made out of wood.
To be exact, chipboard.
He already has a chart of when to repair the roof, replace the floors, etc.
And he said that about 3% – 5% in maintenance costs sounds about right, as he will have to replace the roof soon.
Scary story: My aunt & uncle came home one day from a vacation, to find the entire upper half of their brand new house had FALLEN DOWN and caved in.
What had happened?
The toilet upstairs had not been properly installed or watertight, so while they were away, the entire upstairs collapsed.
It had actually been an existing problem from day one, as the water kept dripping and dripping in between the walls and floors (sight unseen) for months, soaking the chipboard walls and floors that caused the collapse.
Black mold all throughout the walls and floors, and they had to evacuate for a month or so while they cleaned up the mess.
Good thing they had insurance.
But that coincidentally (or maybe not) happened just after I came back from Portugal, which just served to reinforce my feelings on chipboard homes.
Homes are actually passed on from generation to generation without costing much
Then they showed me something that made me go: WTF?
I saw a home from 200 years ago of someone´s great grandparents, made entirely out of old stone. The entire thing is still standing and completely liveable with a little cleaning and maintenance of the area outside.
The only thing you would have to pay for is around 400 EUR to clear the garden of all the thorny weeds, random bushes and cacti, and maybe another 5000 EUR to really polish up the place and maybe build an addition onto the home for more space.
That is it. After 150 years. 5400 EUR to have a like-new home again.
Granted, it’s Portugal and cheaper to fix up a home than here, but still. 5400 EUR? That’s $10,000!
The goats love their wooden & tin shacks
And the only thing broken, worn, and unable to be salvaged after 200 years? The wooden house where they kept all the animals.
At least, you know after a generation or two, it can still be passed on to your children and you cannot say the same thing for the wood houses we buy in North America. If they are not maintained, they fall apart.
They LOOK like they are made out of stone and brick, with the nice little facade that is covering the wood structure, but it is just pouring Chanel No. 5 perfume on a pig.
And with the maintenance costs, cost of utilities and a mortgage, I just cannot see how is it worthwhile to buy a home if you are thinking of keeping it in your family for generations to come.
I don’t need any calculations to tell me that buying a wood home for $300,000+ that will fall down without any maintenance, is a not as good as having a home made totally out of stone and brick that you can pass on to your kids.
The fact remains that you will re-pay for the entire cost of the home every 30-40 years forever, and that makes it a bad deal.
With that being said, what choices do we have if we want a home to last forever?
I have no clue other than buying a condo instead.
This was just something I thought I’d share and get off my chest because I can’t believe I didn’t see it before.
And then if you think about the mortgage costs and yearly taxes on top of maintenance, the numbers just look worse and worse.
Then you read blog posts on horrific experiences like what Dog had (here & here) thank goodness she got a house inspection first…. or the trouble that sfordinarygirl’s parents are going through trying to sell their home
And you start to question why it’s such a big deal to own a home.
Sure, it’s an emotional high, a great investment in a place JUST for you, and no one can evict you… but for us, we aren’t really tied to any one place or home.
Which may work out to be for the best in the end because we’re able to adapt and move in a very short amount of time if a landlord tries to bully us.
It only takes us 3 hours on average to move out.
So, other than having your own BBQ and private backyard, I am starting to feel like there’s no financial or emotional benefit in owning a home here in North America.
It just doesn’t fit with our lifestyle.
Maybe you have the answer. Let me know!
So, what do you think?
- Why do you rent instead of paying for a home?
- You don’t deserve a house.
- The Battle of the Sexes: How men cost women more money
- July 2009 Budget Recap
- Answer to Gail’s Polly Riddle
Tigerlily
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 8:08 AM:
My parents house is a wood home. It has been standing for 100 years and actually was passed down from my grandparents. There has been no structural repair on the house, only things like re-shingling (which is not replaceing the roof and needs to be done ever 20 years or so depending on your choice of roof cover.) And adding/refinishing hardwood floors which is an aestheic thing not structural. I don’t think wood homes are the problem. Its shoddy contractors and construction.
frugalscholar
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 8:17 AM:
Most of our house is from around 1910–it is made of old wood. That wood is tough and the home was built the old-fashioned way. No staples. Solid wood beadboard. That part has needed very little maintenance. The newer part of our home needs constant repair.
We also have a slate roof. We resisted replacement post-Katrina because slate roofs last 100plus years! We still have a lot of time left, though it was hard to find someone to do repairs on it after 4 trees landed on the house. They did not go through because old houses are strong and built the proper way.
frugalscholar´s last blog ..Clutter and Bargains: The Example of Babysitting
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 8:35 AM:
@Tigerlily and @frugalscholar:
Great points!!
I never considered shoddy workmanship — I guess I take it for granted now that every new house is shoddily built
But as for thick, solid beams of actual wood, you make a very good point.
I should have mentioned it in my post and made the distinction between that and chipboard which.. is not really wood, per se.
Those thick wood log cabins seem to last a lifetime, because they don’t burn as easily being such large beams of wood (takes a long time to get a log cabin to start burning, and you need a ton of fire).
Great points
Little House
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 9:17 AM:
Most homes here in the US are built upon chip wood. They do need regular maintenance, or they will fall apart and eventually cave in on themselves. (I’ve seen a few dilapidated homes in my area). Stone homes seem like a terrific idea, but I would guess that they would be mighty expensive building one, even if I could pass it on to generations for further enjoyment.
Home ownership is a big and scary step. My husband and I are working towards saving for a down payment to purchase one of those wonderful chip board style homes
, as scary as that is!
Little House´s last blog ..Suburbs and suburbans
Ginger
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 10:35 AM:
Stone homes are good, but also have their downsides, too. For one, you can’t decorate as easily, they can often be cold and damp and if you want to knock out a wall or do any kind of remodeling it’s very difficult and expensive. You also can’t hang shelves or photos as easily! Oooh, and they require maintenance as well, stone, tile, etc. needs to be re-grouted (??) and such every so often, and checked to ensure it’s still stable. You can’t just leave it alone forever, it will eventually deteriorate.
Condos are just as bad.
As are shoddy “wood” homes.
It’s important to keep in mind that it’s all about the workmanship and not just about the materials when you look at a home. Good workmanship usually means using good materials.
Also you need to remember that homes are built a certain way according to their locale and environment. Portugal is a warmer climate, so building wooden houses there wouldn’t make much sense. They would get wood rot, be hot and attract vermin like termites much more than a stone or plaster-type home would. It makes sense for them to build that way.
However it doesn’t make as much sense to build like that in Canada. Not only is it super expensive, it doesn’t fit our culture or environment. We need warmth and we don’t plan to pass our homes onto our children. So we use a mixture of materials and techniques to build our homes. You’ll notice in the rest of Europe it’s a mix-up like that, too. We can’t all inherit 200 year old stone houses.
As another poster mentioned, nowadays most houses are prefab pieces of crap with low quality building materials. But if you make a custom home (like parts of my family) then you can build a quality one that doesn’t require much maintenance and one that will last for years. In fact the house my apartment is part of is over 100 years old, and we still have the original windows, walls, etc.
Based on your get-up-and-go lifestyle, you’re right. Having a home is probably not the right choice for you. You and your BF wouldn’t get much benefit from it.
However, for the rest of us, investing in a comfortable, well-made home is the right thing to do. It fits our lifestyles and isn’t such a money drain if you do it right. And if you want, you can pass it on when you die, or not!
I don’t think your calculations on the cost of owning a home are correct at all! You don’t have to re-pay for the home every 30 years. Just redo the roof (unless you opted for slate! Then you get 100 years)and whatever aesthetic things you want to change.
Ginger´s last blog ..What’s your take on virginity?
Working Rachel
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 10:53 AM:
I lived in Germany for five years and new houses would take months, if not a whole year, to build. In Chicago, where I live now, I don’t see many single-family homes being built, but condo buildings and the like seem to go up in a matter of weeks. Only a skyscraper takes an entire year or more to build.
erika
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 11:40 AM:
We aren’t buying a home. I don’t see the point (for us). We don’t have/want kids, so no one to leave it to… If we did have the money, we’d travel. We are of the age that it wouldn’t be paid off until we are past retirement… Plus, we don’t know how to fix anything and don’t enjoy spending our time gardening and doing other home-related stuff. But we often get in conversations where people say ‘but you have to get into the market now… ‘… or suggest we buy in a town we don’t want to live in, for the investment.
lene
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 12:43 PM:
I lived in Germany for all my life and wood houses are the exception here. Our climate seems comparable to Chicago and the argument about building stone houses in the hotter climate in Portugal therefore doesn’t work here… I agree, it take longer to build an house out of stone than stapling cardboard to wooden frames. The minimum build time for houses seems to be around 4-6 month, unless you buy prepared walls which only have to be set together on your estate.
The stonewalls reduce heating costs and keep the temperature at a constant level (most houses have no aircondition here). In modern houses it’s not neccessary to have stone walls also inside the house although they keep the rooms seperated from noise levels. Most of the time just the outer wllas and some stabilising walls are stone and most inner walls are wood and chipboard like canadian houses.
I have to admit that those scary movies with termites never made sense to me when I was younger. They are not common here in Europe and even if they would invade the houses, they would just eat the furniture… But for northern America the danger is much more present, as they can eat your whole home!
Liam
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 2:06 PM:
It’s amazing the things nobody thinks about until someone else mentions it. I never gave a second thought to what houses are made of.
Liam´s last blog ..
Laura@movetoportugal
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 3:28 PM:
I knew there was a reason I’m moving there…:-)
allersac
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 4:46 PM:
most north americans are ” nouveau riche ” . they don’t come from money and have no clue what a quality home should be made of. their only concern is crap like how big,how much and what size TV can i fit in it. pored concrete or insulated concrete forms are the way to go, it’ll last forever
Financial Samurai
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 6:12 PM:
Wow, very cool and insightful post FB! I have an art deco house made of wood and brick siding. It’s about 80 years old and in great shape due to upkeep and remodeling.
There’s something about time period homes that make me happy. I have a condo in Tahoe for simple vacation living as well, so it depends on how you want to live your current lifestyle.
New construction is nice b/c everything works, and the water runs hot immediately…. but the charm is not there.
Come to San Francisco, and see the Victorians, Edwardians, and Art Deco buildings and fall in love. I did
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..Financial Samurai $1,000 Giveaway & Your Chance To Make Millions Over Your Career!
paranoidasteroid
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 7:50 PM:
Wow, now I have something else to worry about when I finally decide to buy a house!
paranoidasteroid´s last blog ..I spend more when I’m happy
Monica
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 9:50 PM:
Great post!! I too live in Canada but I’m first generation and my parents are originally from Portugal so I know exactly what you mean about those “Canadian” comments on wood. One thing as well is that most homes in Portugal don’t have air conditioning as its not necessary because of the “thick cement walls”. But reno’s are a big deal & troublesome. My parents actually own a really old house (its listed as an historic home so lots of BS to deal with) anyhow the red-tape to get construction permits, demolition, etc is a real b*t&h. My point is that unlike here where housing is “disposable” in the sense that we can pick up & buy/re-sell there its a pride thing to inherit property. At the end of the day though there are some gorgeous “wood” homes covered in “brick” in Canada:) By the way what area did you visit in Portugal?
Monica´s last blog ..Winner of the Dermaglow Giveaway!!!
Kristin
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 10:06 PM:
I think in the U.S. most of us think of it as an investment. In stable economic times you almost always make a profit.
Kristin´s last blog ..Pink Power Giveaway
Andrea
on Oct 26th, 2009
@ 10:57 PM:
Our home is built of concrete block. The interior support, walls, and roof are made of wood posts (one story home). I know that some day we’ll have to replace the roof, but I’m actually looking forward to it as I’ll be replacing it with a metal roof, which will last forever. The only real thing we have to be worried about is fire, which could gut the entire house until we get a metal roof. At least the exterior walls should still be standing!
The home may not last for centuries like some in Europe, but it’ll do. Much better than some of the wood homes we see going up around us!
P.S.–Thank for also coming by my blog!
Andrea´s last blog ..Textbooks
Lawgirl
on Oct 27th, 2009
@ 12:03 AM:
I grew up in a 1950’s brick house, and never realized how good I had it until I was out on my own. I would love to live in a brick or stone condo. I agree that the workmanship needs to be taken into account, which is why folks often look for homes built before the 1970s, unless you can afford a private builder.
Personally, I know I don’t want to spend my weekends on the yard or anything like that. I have been a renter my entire adult life, and while I do wish for more freedoms to decorate, etc., I am also grateful that when the refrigerator dies, there is a new one waiting for me when I get home, at no cost to me.
I think one must really be honest with him/herself and ask, am I one of the folks who is willing to put in the time, energy, and money into home maintenance? For me, the answer is no.
Lawgirl´s last blog ..I may not be able to ignore this one
Concojones
on Oct 27th, 2009
@ 8:29 AM:
North American houses being made of wood/chipboard?! Here in Belgium everything is made of brick or concrete (and takes 1-2 years to build). I remember one house being built had a wooden construction inside, and my mother said that wood was “nicely warm” but “probably expensive”. Wood is probably cheap and abundant in Canada. Here it’s not; instead we have rivers and clay (from which they make brick). Most people own and do not rent. Rule of thumb for yearly repair costs: .25-1% (new vs old), typically for things like plumbing, heating, occasionally a leaking roof. Can’t think of anything else other than replacing light bulbs.
3-5% Seems outrageous and unacceptable to me, too!
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Oct 27th, 2009
@ 8:41 AM:
@erika: Me neither actually. If we buy anything, it’ll be a condo or a penthouse somewhere. But we won’t buy a home.. It just isn’t worth it for us, considering that we are planning on living in another country later..
Alicia
on Oct 27th, 2009
@ 2:41 PM:
Interesting post. It’s funny because my boyfriend and I had the “what’s the lowest maintenance house to own?” discussion and agreed that stone was it.
Although lately I’m really liking this idea: (see ecopod or ATC):
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/8/twelve-amazing-shipping-container-houses.html
It would not last forever (or anywhere near) but these days, we are so transient, I doubt we want a house that will last forever anyway.
Also, I thought I’d mention this since you said log homes might be nice. My boss has a log house and the cracks let drafts inside in the winter and bugs inside in the summers.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Oct 27th, 2009
@ 3:35 PM:
@Alicia: We’re transient as well, which is probably why I am leaning towards NOT having a home..
But those shipping container houses look great! I kind of like the idea.
Rose
on Oct 29th, 2009
@ 9:52 AM:
Very interesting post FB!
) – must do some backreading later.
(Came here via ALU)
I think i like your site a lot
I live in a stone house in Amsterdam that was built in the 1750’s (yes) in a country once full of trees. Until the 1600’s, house would be made of wood, and only the rich would build in stone. Better brickmaking techniques (and a lot of clay, like in Belgium!) enabled the building of brick housing everywhere and for everyone. Not to mention of course the advantage of the longevity of these buildings. Temperatures never go over 100 F here (hence very few places with a/c) but we have freezing, snow and a lot of rain. Yes, our houses cost a lot more time to build, are more expensive (typically between 3-6 times one’s yearly income) so we have big mortgages and do not move house a lot. A reason why many people rent (and cannot be kicked out at short notice: protected by law), and few foreclosures happen: no bank will lend you the money! It has never been a wide-spread custom to buy a house and sell it some time later ‘because the price will always go up’, nor would you be able to take out a mortgage solely based on that argument.
So our housing market is sort of petrified in several ways, but maintenance is negligible: maybe a little leakage where the lead around the chimney has worn through, paint the wooden window frames every 10 years, grouting maybe every 50 years, plumbing (leadfree already) ditto. Our roofs are tiled, an these tiles live forever. Downside: houses are fairly small, because land plots are small in this rather crowded country. Upside: because there’s so little space, retail therapy has automatic self-limiting tendencies!
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Oct 29th, 2009
@ 5:12 PM:
@Rose Thank you for your insightful comment from Amsterdam! (What is ALU?)..
I find the money attitudes in Europe and Asia to be very different from North America. Not to say that all North Americans are painted with the same brush, but the laws in Europe are especially tight for getting a home and a mortgage.
I found it fascinating that the general attitude here (and mine was the same, before I started looking deeply into having a home and a mortgage), is that a house is better than renting.
There are pros and cons to both, but I don’t think people really assess what it means to own a home and whether it makes sense for them. We just seem to adhere to conventional wisdom that when we buy a home, it’s a good investment and the price will rise, but never fall.
Bonne Vie - Wholestyle on the Web: Week of 10/30/09
on Oct 30th, 2009
@ 5:48 PM:
[...] Fabulously Broke in the City: The Emperor Has No House [...]
Bonne Vie - Wholestyle on the Web: Week of 10/30/09
on Oct 30th, 2009
@ 5:48 PM:
[...] Fabulously Broke in the City: The Emperor Has No House [...]
Concojones
on Nov 1st, 2009
@ 5:26 AM:
@Rose: hallo, Noorderbuur
@FB: Belgium has more home owners than the Netherlands. We’re said to be “born with a brick in our stomachs” and adhere “the best investment is a house” (stocks aren’t widespread as they are in North America) and “renting is throwing money away”. Before the housing crisis, I’d have animated discussions about that with my dad, who happens to be very finance-savvy, and pressured me to buy a house, saying that it’d appreciate as fast as stocks. I’d counter that I saw no reason why real estate would do better than inflation, in the long run. Meanwhile he’s admitted I was right
but he still thinks a house is the best investment (because it’s safe and gives you shelter).
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Nov 1st, 2009
@ 6:55 AM:
@Concojones: I would agree with that, if it was in real stone or brick.
I think everyone has the idea that if you own the home, no one can raise the rent on you or toss you out.
To a certain extent, that is true. But when the home starts costing more (in the grand scheme of things with maintenance, mortgage costs, buying furniture for the home etc etc) than if you were to rent.. then it starts to become ridiculous when you have to repay the entire home made out of WOOD in another 35-40 years.
My oldest brother who has that half a million dollar home, says that he agrees that houses are a losing investment returning 0% in the long run or running into the negative.
He bought one anyway under pressure from the wife and because he wanted his own place, but at least he was aware of the situation and warned me against it.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Nov 3rd, 2009
@ 7:39 PM:
@Ginger:
P.S. my calculations are as follows:
$300,000 = price of the home
3% of the home’s value should be set aside for maintenance (standard percentage)
3% x $300,000 = $9000/year
Taxes for the home are around 2% a year, depending on where you live and what you have.
2% x $300,000 = $6000/year
$6000 + $9000 = $15,000
$15,000 a year x 20 years = $300,000
Tell me how that math is wrong.
Just in taxes and maintenance costs alone, WITHOUT taking into account mortgage interest, it is $300,000 after 20 years, or $600,00 after 40 years.
If we just deal in taxes alone, in 50 years you will have repaid the value of the home at $300,000.
Not including the cost of inflation, etc.. But with maintenance, it’s a bit unrealistic.
In contrast, stone homes do NOT need maintenance as often as wood homes.
Damp or not, cold or not, cannot hang decorations or not, I was not talking about the aesthetics.
If it’s damp, put on some rugs and some heaters, it will warm up quite quickly.
As for decorations, they had them all over the house! Pictures all over the place, you couldn’t even tell it was a stone home unless you tapped the walls.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Nov 3rd, 2009
@ 7:48 PM:
@Andrea: I love the idea of a concrete block home! I’d go for that.
@Concojones: It is why I am starting to feel strongly about not buying a home period.
If I cannot get one from the 1970s (seems like a good period), or in stone or brick without costing an arm and leg, I’d rather just not buy. Or buy a condo instead.
Chipboard and wood is very abundant here, but they don’t even use GOOD wood. It’s really crap, when you see it in stores. Warped, not cured properly…
Chipboard is worse. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the construction for myself. CHIPBOARD.
@Kristin: That’s true that you COULD make a profit, but when you do the math looking at home values and profits over 10 years or so, the real return is 0%.
Unless you happen to luck out and buy in a booming area like Calgary before it went huge, … owning a home should only be for sentimental or emotional reasons, not to “make money”.
Too many people lost money trying to make it via homes. The only ones raking in the dough are the builders of these chipboard shacks.
@Working Rachel: @lene: Germany seems to be a popular country of habitation of my readers. Welcome
I think I prefer the European mindset when it comes to homes. I am just starting to get so disenchanted…
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Nov 3rd, 2009
@ 7:49 PM:
@Monica: I saw your comment just after I posted.. shoot.
I went to Lisbon, all over the little cities like Macedo and basically saw some of the country’s landscape (in the mountains too).
I definitely got flack for being Canadian and living in a country full of wood homes. LOL
These houses are awesome. « Fabulously Broke in the City
on Nov 14th, 2009
@ 1:02 AM:
[...] COMMENTS: 6595Leave me a commenthttp://www.fabulouslybroke.com/2009/11/awesome-houses/These+houses+are+awesome.2009-11-14+06%3A00%3A22FB+%40+FabulouslyBroke.com This is my favourite one, the stone house in portugal. LOL!!!!!! Makes me think of my post about North American vs. European Homes here. [...]