Ignore my previous indignation!

But, compared to my house, looks downright robber baronish and not at all modest.

I guess it’s all perspective. Reckon who has more?

In any case, this looks awesome. Can anyone actually be surprised?

Yes you’re right, I “can” own a house at such low income, but that ignores all the other expenses of living. Part of homemaking revolves around creating a stable environment. Now, as I am sure you are aware, unemployment is not a “stable” situation. Never mind what you pointed out earlier that if things are “that bad” I should “GTFO.” So sure I can own a home if I cared to invest in this terrible houseing market, but perhaps as you suggest, rightly, I should move on to greener pastures. After all, it’s dog eat dog right? Only the High-Skill survive in this economy. The overarching economic problems, while I don’t blame them specifically for my situation, I can still use them to assess my options. And at no point in the next 5 years does homeownership look good as I will likely have a semi-nomadic existence in search of a stable “situation.”

If you are really only 33 and really understand what many young people face now, (not all, of course), you might realize that you should be thankful for what you have rather then tearing into someone who hasn’t happened find your definition of success.

My Queen Anne is a neat old house, has 4 bedrooms (probably originally 5-6, because I think it was built before indoor plumbing became common here, and the master bedroom is large enough that it was probably originally two rooms, unless it was used as a sewing room or something). It also has a large unfinished third floor that could easily be finished into 3-4 more bedrooms and a third bathroom if needed. It’s only about 2200 square feet (not counting the attic space). There are other victorians and foursquares in the neighborhood that have 5-6 bedrooms and run 3000-4000 square feet, and no one would consider them mansions. There’s even one up for about 125K right now, a 5 bedroom with 4140 square feet: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/304-W-Navarre_South-Bend_IN_46616_M30160-57346). That’s about 800 square feet and $8.3 million less than Steve’s new digs.

Steve’s new house certainly isn’t all that modest, but it’s not a mansion. Looks like a nice comfortable place to live though, especially once all the landscaping is done.

Seems like a very modest house for a billionaire. Also seems like it’s snug enough to feel like a home. A 14 bedroom house with 9 unused bedrooms would never feel homey.
And it’s only Americans who might view a house from the 1920′s as an old house (thus I’m guessing that xzzy #6 is American). There was some very nice architecture in that time but unless the house was something really special then it’s probably not worth saving, especially if it would receive extensive modifications leaving only the shell looking original.

Also — seething with bitter jealousy much?

I live in a 1910 Bungalow that has 5 bedrooms…perhaps originally four. Now it needs a lot of TLC, but hey now that I’ll soon be unemployed that shouldn’t be much of a problem.

Sincerely,

Judi Kiel
Woodside

Preserving old houses is a fine thing. But anyone with common sense buys a house to LIVE in it — and if it isn’t comfortable, you adjust appropriately. For most of us, that means moving to another house; he has the luxury of being able to move the houses instead, but it’s really Not All That Odd. Old houses are moved on a fairly regular basis — heck, Cambridge MA has seen houses rolling up and down Mass Ave fairly recently.

As far as 5-bedroom goes: Be serious. Number of “bedrooms” really is not a measure of a house’s size or complexity — or cost, or value except to those who particularly need the space divided up that way. My place is a 4-bedroom, technically. One of those bedrooms is my library, one is my office, one is a guest bedroom… but because they all have closets associated with them, they are considered Bedrooms in local real-estate parlance. (Heck, Cambridge would probably have counted my living room as another potential bedroom, and might have counted my dining room if it wasn’t open-plan.)

As far as whether the house is “historic” or not: I’m not convinced age alone grants that. The East Coast has a lot of pre-1900 housing stock still in active use; the West Coast, obviously, has less and the midwest probably has even less. Again, my own place is in that rage but so is most of the neighborhood since it was all developed at about the same time. This Old House would find _my_ old house completely uninteresting. On the other hand, there’s a house two blocks away which is considered an architectural landmark despite being (I believe) more recent than mine, and one three blocks away which is a slightly-significant historical site (but is not the original house on that site). Some things are historic; some are venerable; some are just old (but, if you’re lucky, still functional and comfortable). Whether someone’s willing to pay to preserve it is not a completely unreasonable test of whether it’s worth preserving.

Even people “employed” my age (late 20s) can’t afford to think about a mortgage. By millennial, and dare I say current, economic standards five bedrooms is a massive and unaffordable mansion. We millennials are lucky if we even make enough money to live away from our parents. This is all in addition to the traditional job and unemployment issues that exist in many rural parts of America.

5 bedrooms for 125K = unaffordable Mansion.

Guess what? It’s like that for almost EVERYONE when they at that age. Boo-frickin’-hoo. I was in the 2 other recessions previous and all of my cohorts were having the same trouble years and years ago with jobs, housing, etc. Also, if you’re in rural America then GTFO, find a gig, and stop complaining. There is a reason why there is a hollowing out of America. When you make enough cash and cachet boomerang back and give back to the community.

This is all very easy for you to say. I am a vet, and it’s not like I have purposely sought unemployment just to peeve the elders! First off I can’t afford to move, I’ve been looking for work for the last 5 months. I know it makes sense to you that I move to greener pastures but what if that isn’t economically viable? What do you want me to do? So life was tough on you too OK I got it. Then you should understand and perhaps you could offer a little empathy.

I honestly think the culture is pumping up all of these outmoded and ludicrous expectations 24/7 about what constitutes success in the world that the younger generation just eat it up.

You’re right, as of right now success for me means I get to eat, and keep a roof over my head. Plain and simple. I am not sure If the threat of homelessness or being economically stagnated at the parents house loomed over previous generations or not.

While it may need interior work, that’s still almost certainly less work than demolition. Regardless of what Jobs says; it’s easy to skew the numbers to make it look unfeasible. Think of all the energy required to move such a large house. It’s still less than demolishing it; there you’re moving the same weight but also using the energy to smash it up and fill a landfill. That rather negates any “sustainability” arguments. And the articles that I’m seeing suggest that it is not, in fact, being dismantled, but that was just a last-ditch hope by preservationists.

No, the walls are probably not steel and concrete. They’re probably plaster over wood framing, or if it’s exceptionally solid, plaster over metal mesh over hollow clay tile.

Fun Fact about the apostrophe thing: Fancy difference between english and german. In german this case is the only one where a apostrophe is allowed afaik (no teacher, but still ;)).

Buildings can’t be old unless they’re allowed to get old, and in this day and age, something lasting 90 years is doing pretty good. Tossing it aside just because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary criteria for “old” is silly.