Dither, dither...

[jducoeur]

As previously mentioned, we brought Susana on board as a buyer's agent a few weeks ago. Since then, she's been seriously earning her keep, pointing us at potentially interesting houses and generally kicking the moving project into high gear.

Well, one of the listings caught my eye as sounding particularly attractive. On Friday, I went to look at it, and was surprised to find that I liked it even more in person. So we went back again tonight with msmemory so she could take a look, and we continue to be quite attracted to it. A smidgeon expensive, but it has everything we wanted and a couple that hadn't occurred to us to look for. (Like an acre of land, most of it forested wetland, so it isn't adding to the price but provides lots of privacy.) The house just feels really nice. Walking into it is like shrugging on a well-tailored overcoat: from the kitchen to the family room to the basement, it fits us well.

It does, of course, have one snag: it's out in Framingham. We'd talked about location before, and established that anything out to about Framingham or Chelmsford was okay if the house was perfect. Well, okay -- now we've found a near-perfect house, so we need to decide if we're serious about that.

It's an odd psychological barrier, crossing 128. Framingham really isn't all that far -- maybe 15 minutes further out from the city -- but we've heard so many people talk about how far they think of it being that it gives us pause. One of the objectives for this house is to have a good place to start entertaining again (it's delightfully well-laid-out for parties), and there's an odd little fear that no one will make the trek out there.

Of course, it isn't very rational. Everywhere is far from somewhere -- this location is considerably closer to Waltham than, say, Dorchester is, and people go there all the time. Some of it is probably just habit: I've lived in Waltham for over half my life, and msmemory nearly as long, so the idea of moving a significant distance away and having to learn the ins and outs of a new area is curiously daunting. Up until now, the house-buying process has been very intellectual, but now that push is coming to shove, we're learning a bit about ourselves.

We'll see. First we need to decide if we want it. Even if we do, a host of things could go wrong. But one way or another, this project has now taken on a dimension of reality that it didn't have before...

Comments

[marysdress.livejournal.com]

One question I would have is how many houses have you looked at? It doesn't negate this being a great house, but it is one data point to consider. Are you sure enough you can't find something you want closer that you want to take this one?

[jducoeur]

Some, not tons. We've looked at a substantial number of houses on paper and rejected them. We haven't looked at a lot in person -- but that's because we've been rejecting so many because they are *blatantly* inappropriate. This is only the fourth or fifth house we've looked at in person; the others were nice, but wrong for what we're looking for.

Having Susana on board has changed the terms of engagement a lot: instead of doing ad-hoc looking around the way we did last time, she's sending us reams of listings based on our criteria. Even within those criteria, precious few of the houses have any attraction at all.

Part of the problem is that our architectural tastes are effectively expensive: most inexpensive designs are laid out in exactly the ways we don't want, with lots of relatively little rooms. There are tons of houses that appeal to us, but they mostly cost $700k+...

[ladysprite.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. This probably runs counter to all the other advice you're going to get, but if this is just the fourth house you've looked at, I'd keep looking, honestly.

If you've found one you adore this quickly, you're probably likely to find more - and if you hop onto this one right now, you might miss something better and closer that could turn up later. While I'll accept that you may not find something better, it seems pretty certain that you'd at least find something as good given time.

Then again, I'm a huge fan of patience and waiting for the perfect thing instead of accepting 'pretty good,' or 'almost just right.' And, from what I remember of watching friends and family house-hunt, taking a year or more to find the perfect house is pretty normal...

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Let's see - the College Farm Rd. one with the big pool, no garage, nice basement playroom. The Trimount Rd one which was aesthetically beautiful but the only 2nd floor access was up a spiral staircase and the kitchen was bachelor sized. The split down near Waverly Oaks (dull and the living room too small). The big white one on Main St that felt like it ought to house a professional's offices (CPA/dentist etc - and only one full bath for 4 BRs). Lots and lots of drivebys - in Cedarwood and Lincoln Heights and Lakeview, Woburn, and Burlington.

Then there were all the ones we rejected based on the MLS web photo show...

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

Then there were all the ones we rejected based on the MLS web photo show...

Based on one photo, or based on a photo spread of inside & out? Our house is a perfect example of something that didn't photo well, but once we got inside and saw the potential, we made an offer that same day (after seeing four more houses and then trooping back to the first one on the list).

Everyone is looking for something different in a house, and few people get exactly what they're hoping for. The longer you take to look, the more likely it is that you'll find something near-perfect. But this means that sometimes you lose chances, you dither on less-perfect opportunities, etc. (This also gives you more time to finish cleaning up your current home and pack things up for moving.)

I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor, and I would love to help in any way that I can. I'm thinking of you. :)

[jducoeur]

Actually, most of the rejects were rejected on the numbers, rather than the pictures. We have a bunch of fairly specific characteristics that we're looking for, and they're unusual, especially in houses in a reasonable price range. This house is an *astonishingly* good fit in every respect except location -- it hits essentially every one of the long list of bullet points we had come up with, including not just all of the mandatory ones but most of the optional ones. (I mean, we never expected to actually find a house that has a *bigger* walk-in closet than our current one, but this house has the biggest closet I have ever seen in my life, large enough for all our clothes *and* all the SCA stuff.) And it feels nice to boot.

Given that I don't ever expect to find something that hits *all* of my criteria, finding one that only misses on one element is frankly better than I'd expected. And indeed, it doesn't even technically miss on that element: it *is* within the location range we'd specified. The question is, were we right in specifying that range? I think we're leaning towards "yes", but not quite there yet.

I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor, and I would love to help in any way that I can. I'm thinking of you. :)

Thanks much. The good wishes are probably the best thing you can do for it right now. (Although heaven knows, if this *does* happen, we may find ourselves needing to ask for help with packing...)

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

More free advice: when you hire the movers, have them do the packing too. I've done several moves, and if you've got the money, they're more than worth it.