The fundamental expression of wealth and abundance in North America for a normoid is buying a suburb house off a boomer for 10x what they paid for it, and then tearing it down and building something better. This is appropriate because boomer stick frame and plywood shacks are easy to disassemble/demolish. You could build something more lasting out of stone and masonry, but also should you just replace it with another somewhat flimsy but new stick-frame and plywood house, that is fine too. This process actually gets more relevant the closer your house is to the 1990s than a house from 1920. The latter house is more likely to have good wood and design philosophy. The creaky shack from 1992 that was built by an Italian or Greek person in the suburbs is likely not going to have an architecture or design worth keeping via renovation. The point here is to express your financial ability to engage in renewal. The economics of it don't matter that much, it isn't likely you will recoup your spending. It's a flex to be able to drop income on a structure you know you probably won't recoup, but simply enjoy to live in and appreciate. This is a different mindset from a boomer who thinks their stick-frame shack should somehow appreciate in value. If you can't do this you aren't really even middle-class wealthy.
>>62142989people with money live in big city penthouses or 500 acre ranches in wyoming. this sounds like a mentally ill cope.
True. As long as you set up your kids to have a better start to life than yourself, the best play is to lifestyle max (nice living space, optional work, drive the car you want, go anywhere you want, eat whatever you want).
>>62142989>>62143037didn't ask
If you live in a suburb and see a single non-White, your "land" is worthless.
>>62142989feels sort of wasteful when you could just buy a nice 60s ranch style house made of brick and not have to change a thing.>>62143048doesn’t exist. before you get rich enough that only white people can afford to live there all your neighbors all start hiring brown people as gardeners, handymen, and maids.
>>62143027you've totally missed the point because I wasn't more specific and direct. I'm talking about normal middle-class. If you are a normal middle-class person and can't do the above you aren't normal middle-class wealthy. I am not talking about penthouse and ranch type wealth. I am talking about normal average person wealth. But the thing is it's not normal or average, becuase you sir, are the one coping. If you can't tear down and build a new suburb house and think you are financially succesful for your class, you are the one coping. If your dad lives in the same house he bought in 1991 that you grew up in and it is a standard stick frame plywood house and not some architectural beauty worth maintaining, and he can't tear it down and build something new with no care towards the investment value of the decision, and not just live in it to enjoy it knowing he probably won't make it back, then he is not middle-class wealthy. If you can't do that for him if he can't, then you are not middle-class wealthy.
>>62143100the closer you get to the 1990's the more my tear-down thesis makes sense. You admit yourself the 60's house is probably worth considering keeping, I don't disagree. A house from 1960 is more worth considering keeping and updating a bit vs. something from 1990, when speaking about architectural trends in residential neighbourhoods in North America. Almost nothing built in the 90's is worth keeping. Past the 1990s, the overvalued structure costs make it just ridiculous to buy to tear down except in super rich territory, and we aren't talking about that. We are talking normal middle-class wealthy.
>>62143100also i specifically mentioned masonry and stone in my post to make it clear to differentiate between something built with that material vs. the standard stick-frame and plywood. Please read more carefully next time. Secondly, some people don't like living in used houses. To me, even a standard well-built 1960's house isn't really worth keeping. New houses can have subterranean garages to maximize square footage and architectural design lot placement (building a house that takes up most of the lot is not wealthy-coded, it's the opposite philosophy of estate houses where there is lots of land and the house takes up a small portion of it. By utilizing subterranean basements and garages that extend out past the footing of the actual above-ground house, one can maintain the pleasant aesthetic of a house that takes up a balanced proportion of the lot. If you don't have a large grass yard and your house just takes up most available lot space, you aren't actually middle-class wealthy. Middle-class wealthy has a large lawn and unused space at ground level for aesthetics and playful enjoyment.
>>62142989Stop calling things that aren't rocks stones. A brick is not a stone. A cement block is not a stone. Also mow your fucking grass.
>>62143181nowhere in my post did i infer a stone is not a rock
>>62142989There is the value in the land, but for a building to have value, it should be long lasting and as maintenance free as possible. If you didn't build it or spec it out, it's a fucked minimum viable house. Reinforced concrete and a double lock metal roof are 100yr no maintenance when done right. If you have an HOA that's pretty fucked unless theyre just there to handle roads. If you have to insure it because it has a mortgage that's fucked. If you're required to be connected to utilities because the county says that's fucked. If you don't have enough space to build a house for your kids, that's fucked.
