How come rental houses in the suburbs with a few apartments in them
usually always cost much much much less to buy than if these houses
were just a one-family houses?

In some areas I am pondering moving to (and ones that years ago that I
used to ponder moving to), the houses for the price that I want to
spend are either too big for me or too small. It's difficult to
impossible to find one that's inbetween.


From what I've seen in real estate brochures and online, you get more
for your money in hotels too. I am pondering buying a hotel and then
turning it into my own private house.

Chris Tsao wrote:
How come rental houses in the suburbs with a few apartments in them
usually always cost much much much less to buy than if these houses
were just a one-family houses?

Because they _are_ rental property in areas zoned for rental, not
single-dwelling. In areas w/ rentals, one typically can not count on
property values remaining stationary or rising to the extent of most
residential neighborhoods simply because rental property is subject to
the vagaries of bad tenants and being managed by poor landlords (either
for indifference and/or incompetence or actual design). This is, of
course, a generalization that to which there can be found exceptions,
but as you've noted, it is typical.

In some areas I am pondering moving to (and ones that years ago that I
used to ponder moving to), the houses for the price that I want to
spend are either too big for me or too small. It's difficult to
impossible to find one that's inbetween.


From what I've seen in real estate brochures and online, you get more
for your money in hotels too. I am pondering buying a hotel and then
turning it into my own private house.

???? This makes absolutely no sense to me--you're letting purchase
price control the property selection first? Your first statement says
you want to spend enough to buy properties that are too big--so spend
less would seem a workable alternative. Then, otoh, you say the same
dollars don't buy a large enough house. That then sounds as though you
must be comparing one very expensive area to another of much less.
That's the proverbial "apples and oranges" -- doesn't work that way.
Real estate is "location, location, location" -- simple mantra, but
very important.

The idea of buying a commercial property with thinking to convert it to
single-family dwelling is probably _not_ a good one---first of all, you
may not be able to effect a zoning change to prevent it from continuing
to be classified as commercial and if so, the taxes and other ancillary
costs are likely to make it an expensive proposition. It will also
undoubtedly suffer from the same problem you've noted above--a
residence in a commercial area is simply not going to have a very high
resale value so you would be quite unlikely to be able to recoup any
investment made in the remodeling. OTOH, if it were a reasonable
neighborhood and not too terribly rundown, one _might_ be able to
renovate and convert to apartments and make a go of something that
way--but it would certainly take a good analysis of the area and
renovation costs, likelihood of rental at decent rate of return, etc.,
etc., etc., before one would want to make such an investment.

dpb wrote:

Chris Tsao wrote:
How come rental houses in the suburbs with a few apartments in them
usually always cost much much much less to buy than if these houses
were just a one-family houses?

Because they _are_ rental property in areas zoned for rental, not
single-dwelling. In areas w/ rentals, one typically can not count on
property values remaining stationary or rising to the extent of most
residential neighborhoods simply because rental property is subject to
the vagaries of bad tenants and being managed by poor landlords (either
for indifference and/or incompetence or actual design). This is, of
course, a generalization that to which there can be found exceptions,
but as you've noted, it is typical.

Now it all makes sense to me.

In some areas I am pondering moving to (and ones that years ago that I
used to ponder moving to), the houses for the price that I want to
spend are either too big for me or too small. It's difficult to
impossible to find one that's inbetween.


From what I've seen in real estate brochures and online, you get more
for your money in hotels too. I am pondering buying a hotel and then
turning it into my own private house.

???? This makes absolutely no sense to me--you're letting purchase
price control the property selection first? Your first statement says
you want to spend enough to buy properties that are too big--so spend
less would seem a workable alternative. Then, otoh, you say the same
dollars don't buy a large enough house. That then sounds as though you
must be comparing one very expensive area to another of much less.
That's the proverbial "apples and oranges" -- doesn't work that way.
Real estate is "location, location, location" -- simple mantra, but
very important.

I want three bedrooms, a living room, dining room and a kitchen, but I
am pondering a house with more bedrooms so I can do stuff that nobody
else but me cares about. Like gating off part of the house so two
African Grey parrots can have lots of room and hardly have to be in a
bird cage, or so I can keep a mountain lion indoors (as well as
outdoors), or I'd have the widest projection screen TV they make (the
kind with the screen that you pull down). Or I'd have a house with an
apartment so when I inherit money and thus buy antiques and replica
antiques, I can still keep my furniture that I have now. Not counting
colonial and victorian houses, I think that bigger houses look nicer
because there's more that the architect can do with it, but I cannot
make up my mind what sized house to get. I like colonial and victorian
the best, so maybe I can get one that's a combination of both, if
there's such thing (and if it's official).

The idea of buying a commercial property with thinking to convert it to
single-family dwelling is probably _not_ a good one---first of all, you
may not be able to effect a zoning change to prevent it from continuing
to be classified as commercial and if so, the taxes and other ancillary
costs are likely to make it an expensive proposition. It will also
undoubtedly suffer from the same problem you've noted above--a
residence in a commercial area is simply not going to have a very high
resale value so you would be quite unlikely to be able to recoup any
investment made in the remodeling. OTOH, if it were a reasonable
neighborhood and not too terribly rundown, one _might_ be able to
renovate and convert to apartments and make a go of something that
way--but it would certainly take a good analysis of the area and
renovation costs, likelihood of rental at decent rate of return, etc.,
etc., etc., before one would want to make such an investment.

Oh. :-( My hopes are now dashed. I couldn't rest wondering whether a
tenenent would accidentally burn the house I was living in down. I've
noticed that a lot of hotels in towns have been ruined due to fires.

I want three bedrooms, a living room, dining room and a kitchen, but I
am pondering a house with more bedrooms so I can do stuff that nobody
else but me cares about. Like gating off part of the house so two
African Grey parrots can have lots of room and hardly have to be in a
bird cage, or so I can keep a mountain lion indoors (as well as
outdoors), or I'd have the widest projection screen TV they make (the
kind with the screen that you pull down). Or I'd have a house with an
apartment so when I inherit money and thus buy antiques and replica
antiques, I can still keep my furniture that I have now. Not counting
colonial and victorian houses, I think that bigger houses look nicer
because there's more that the architect can do with it, but I cannot
make up my mind what sized house to get. I like colonial and victorian
the best, so maybe I can get one that's a combination of both, if
there's such thing (and if it's official).

Look for an ex-church, grange-hall, or masonic temple. Those
are generally in areas where zoning would be less of an issue.
Have spare money available, because those sorts of building
get sold when the organization goes under, which means you
can expect a great deal of deferred maintenance.

When in doubt, go for more land and less building. You
can always add more building.

Chris Tsao wrote:
....
...so I can do stuff ... Like gating off part of the house so two
African Grey parrots can have lots of room and hardly have to be in a
bird cage, or so I can keep a mountain lion ...

Well, you had best count on being unable to recoup much of your
investment if you ever try to sell the property after such an escapade
then, or budget to completely renovate such a portion as has had such
use down to the bare studs kind of restoration. Animal scents and
damage is amongst the worst of what will detract from potential buyers.

As far as keeping a mountain lion (or any large cat) as a pet or in a
residential neighborhood, I suspect by now there is no municipality
that would allow it and it simply isn't a good idea. I know there are
those who do such stupid things, but that doesn't excuse it or change
the fact that wild cats don't make house pets.

We had a high school senior girl on a field trip in this area mauled
and killed by a supposedly tame white leopard while having picture
taken just last spring. You don't need the grief those folks are now
going through from the legal system (quite justifiably in my view) even
though there was (in this case literal) also a case of terminal stupid
on the part of anybody standing next to a large, supposedly tame, cat
not somehow restrained. Near as I can tell from the accounts, nothing
really happened to precipitate the attack and "it never happened
before" -- well, gee! That's comforting!