Big Money Homes

[cabinetman]

While at the veterinarian today with the dog, the doc was telling me of one of his clients that is trying to sell her home. He said she was discounting it to $3 million. It's in an incredible development. There are some sports figures living there. The homes average $5 million and up, and about 20,000 sq.ft. and up, with a 3,000 - 4000 sq.ft. in-law house, and 4 car garages. Lot sizes are 2 acres and up.

I just had to take a ride through the area, and snapped a few pictures.
.

.

.

.

[RAFlorida]

Now we KNOW where

CabinetMan really lives. Thanks for posting the pics. Which one is really yours?
Figured it out, it's the bottom Mansion...

[LinuxRandal]

It's tough, when you have to buy the lot behind you, so your gymnasium roof, doesn't stick above the roof of the rest of your "house".

[BobSch]

Yeah, but who's going to clean it?


Like that's a problem if you can afford a shack like one of those.

[chopnhack]

Exactly Bob, and this is the reason none of us live in these mcmansion's...we all think practically first. We are a sensible lot, the folks that own these IMO are not. And my first thought after the wow had worn off, because they are beautiful buildings, even the one still under construction!, was God, after roofing it, how in God's name am I going to paint all of that!!! LOL

[x00018]

Finding your way

Do they have the "You Are Here" maps inside so you can get to where you want to go?

[smorris]

I was reading an article yesterday that the McMansion was history and no one is buying them. Whole developments of these are going under and sitting there rotting with no takers.

[woodturner]

I was reading an article yesterday that the McMansion was history and no one is buying them. Whole developments of these are going under and sitting there rotting with no takers.

One would think that, particularly here in the midwest where the economy is still pretty tough. Yet they keep building them, and people keep buying them.

Some of the homes around here make those in the pictures look like "cottages". I suppose people are building here because land costs are a bit lower - but a $10M house is really, really tough to sell in this area.

[cabinetman]

Some of the homes around here make those in the pictures look like "cottages".

Take a few pictures and post them. I'd like to see those homes.
.

[natausch]

Was listening to a report on NPR this morning about the new economy and how people who are upside down on their homes ar "upset" about how long they have to stay in the house before they can sell.

One particular story got my goat. The husband had lost his job in construction and had to move to Texas for other employment. His wife and two children had stayed behind to sell the house, which really doesn't seem likely to happen since they need a $400,000 sale to get out clean. Their realtor thinks it might sell at $200,000. They have more financial woes since the wife had to quit her part-time job since the husband isn't around to look after the children while she works.

Boo freakin' hoo. They overbought a house they couldn't afford. The husband works in the trades and the wife as a part time worker, living within their means clearly wasn't on the agenda. My wife and I chose to buy a house we could support on one income in case either of us lost our jobs.

No sympathy for the people whose irresponsible behavior is the underlying cause of the economic troubles were in.

[os1kne]

Boo freakin' hoo. They overbought a house they couldn't afford. The husband works in the trades and the wife as a part time worker, living within their means clearly wasn't on the agenda. My wife and I chose to buy a house we could support on one income in case either of us lost our jobs.

No sympathy for the people whose irresponsible behavior is the underlying cause of the economic troubles were in.

Also - no sympathy for the banks that enabled this type of irresponsible behavior.

[woodturner]

Also - no sympathy for the banks that enabled this type of irresponsible behavior.

I agree that people should not, and should not have "lived beyond their means". However, I don't agree that the banks were at fault for lending money. There was undoubtedly some impropriety in some cases, but in most cases the banks lent money based on representations from the borrowers. In many cases, these were "no doc" loans where the bank relied on the borrowers affidavit regarding income and assets. If the borrower lied, how is that the bank's fault?

One huge reason for the high rate of default in some states, notably the Western states, is that they are "no recourse" states. That means that the bank's recovery is limited to the home - they can't garnish wages, seize assets, or go after anything other than the home to recover their loss.

Most states are "recourse" states. If I default on my mortgage, for example, I am still liable for the money owed, even if the bank takes and sells the house. Suppose my house is worth $150K and I have a $200K mortgage. I default, and the bank sells it for $150K net. I still owe the bank $50K and they can garnish my wages, seize my savings account, and make other effort to collect the balance due. If I lived in California, for example, which is a "no recourse" state, they could not collect the $50K and that would be a loss to the bank.

[cabinetman]

I agree that people should not, and should not have "lived beyond their means". However, I don't agree that the banks were at fault for lending money. There was undoubtedly some impropriety in some cases, but in most cases the banks lent money based on representations from the borrowers. In many cases, these were "no doc" loans where the bank relied on the borrowers affidavit regarding income and assets. If the borrower lied, how is that the bank's fault?

One huge reason for the high rate of default in some states, notably the Western states, is that they are "no recourse" states. That means that the bank's recovery is limited to the home - they can't garnish wages, seize assets, or go after anything other than the home to recover their loss.

Most states are "recourse" states. If I default on my mortgage, for example, I am still liable for the money owed, even if the bank takes and sells the house. Suppose my house is worth $150K and I have a $200K mortgage. I default, and the bank sells it for $150K net. I still owe the bank $50K and they can garnish my wages, seize my savings account, and make other effort to collect the balance due. If I lived in California, for example, which is a "no recourse" state, they could not collect the $50K and that would be a loss to the bank.

This is getting way off the course of this thread. This particular development caters to sports figures that make literally millions of dollars per year. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the homes pictured were paid for.
.

[radhak]

I have always had a fascination for houses like these, but more around the thought of how if I owned one of them, I could use the money so well once I sold it... !

Sorry to keep at the Off-topic, but Natausch, I wouldn't be as hard on them - if he loses his job and has to move location, then any sort of planning would not help; it's just that in today's scenario, selling a house is not just a matter of wish; the house has become a chained millstone... I can empathize because we are so close to that situation, and we were so circumspect when we bought our house in 2005!

Was listening to a report on NPR this morning about the new economy and how people who are upside down on their homes ar "upset" about how long they have to stay in the house before they can sell.

One particular story got my goat. The husband had lost his job in construction and had to move to Texas for other employment. His wife and two children had stayed behind to sell the house, which really doesn't seem likely to happen since they need a $400,000 sale to get out clean. Their realtor thinks it might sell at $200,000. They have more financial woes since the wife had to quit her part-time job since the husband isn't around to look after the children while she works.

Boo freakin' hoo. They overbought a house they couldn't afford. The husband works in the trades and the wife as a part time worker, living within their means clearly wasn't on the agenda. My wife and I chose to buy a house we could support on one income in case either of us lost our jobs.

No sympathy for the people whose irresponsible behavior is the underlying cause of the economic troubles were in.

[pelligrini]

Our architecture firm has done quite a few large houses. We've only got one big one being designed now. We have a couple future clients looking to design something smaller & newer then the houses they have now. They've been having a tough time selling theirs. Those houses aren't in the 20000 SF range, probably half that or so.

Good luck to your vets client. They are not going to have an easy time selling without some big discounts.

Quite a few of our previous clients have been downsizing over past years. All their kids have grown and they don't need as much space. Some are even moving into high end condos and townhomes so they don't have to deal with all the landscaping and related issues.