morganwr t1_jcffpw9 wrote
Move, preferably to an older and rent controlled building that has been nicely renovated. "Luxuries" and amenities are often just marketing nonsense to cover up flaws and charge way more than your unit is worth. I've had a great experience with Keener so far - all issues are fixed the day I write a ticket, and it's quiet.
LeoMarius t1_jcfl50o wrote
It means granite countertops in the kitchen.
Appropriate-Ad-4148 t1_jcfmqeh wrote
I find anti-shoebox folks are far more likely to come from a wealthy background where they grew up with tons of space(or a neighborhood with character) and were surrounded by groups of folks who look down on small apartment renters(that's for college kids!).
Run an actual cost comparison on a brand new building marketed as "luxury" versus some run down converted row house with stompy and sons living above you next door. There's typically no difference because the baseline for a room for rent STARTS at 1.2k, and once you start accounting for all the demand from people who want "yards", more "square footage", or a parking spot, it's literally all within hundreds of bucks a month.
morganwr t1_jcftj66 wrote
I'm very pro-shoebox - you can live small in the best walking neighborhoods and spend money on activities instead of amassing stuff, less to deal with (no yard, no need for car, no maintenance you personally have to deal with, less to clean). Simple life, happy life.
bageloclock t1_jcfqyfs wrote
I think this is honestly more about neighborhood than anything; it’s quite a generalization to say people who rent older units are all wealthy. I come from a middling background (single mom public school teacher in the Midwest), but I’ve avoided the “shoebox” luxury buildings because they’re frankly way out of my price range.
Take our case. We’re in Brookland in a 2B2B, rent-controlled condo. The price for a 2B in one of the new-build apartments on Monroe is anywhere from $300-$1200 more a month than what we’re paying. To us, the extra amenities and potential for issues like OP is having were frankly not worth it in our calculation.
just offering another perspective!
Appropriate-Ad-4148 t1_jcgczaj wrote
That's true. If you're paying $2,000 a month for 2/2 that's a great deal anywhere in D.C. proper. I guess I'm saying people cast judgement on new, small apartments with nice finishes when they've never really checked the prices.
They have 2/2 950 SF units on the 2nd and 3rd floor right now for $2700-3k here.
Do you have in unit W/D or central HVAC?
bageloclock t1_jcgg52v wrote
Yes! And a parking spot though our street is never crowded.
I should also add I’ve always had a better experience with a landlord who owns their unit than corporate.
On top of everything else, the buildings owned by big corporations seem to nickel and dime you, plus it’s much more difficult to contest your security deposit deductions. Happened to us in our last apartment, a more dated but still corporate-owned building, and it was an unpleasant experience.
LeoMarius t1_jch1lim wrote
It also depends on how much of a homebody you are. If you just crash at home and go out a lot, then why bother with a lot of space?
If you stay home quite a bit, more space is appreciated.
If you don't go out as much, then you can live in a more remote neighborhood.
This also changes with age. Someone just out of college is just happy to have his own pad. Someone in his 40s needs more space but a quieter neighborhood.
morganwr t1_jcfln7n wrote
also have that at my place lol
Docile_Doggo t1_jcfob6n wrote
Co-signing this. “Luxury” apartment buildings often have cheap and shoddy construction that produces all manner of structural problems down the line. Older buildings are often much sturdier and better built (though they certainly have issues as well).
I’ve lived in both older and newer buildings across a number of states, both renovated and non renovated. My favorite places by far have been the older buildings with modern renovations.
dynospectrum7 t1_jcftar9 wrote
Y’all can keep those pest issues. I’ll live in a “poor construction” before I deal with master splinter or roddy roach
Adventurous_Cod9854 t1_jcgm0xy wrote
I guess thats capitalism. Ignorance about urban pest control (that they can be controlled, and that rats don’t infest apartments) among transplants means better quality digs for the more experienced.
dynospectrum7 t1_jcgotbx wrote
Unfortunately, you’re ignorant on the subject. Older buildings have pest issues. Thousands upon thousands of dollars are spent on extermination because nobody wants to live in a place with known issues, which means no rent collections.
This is coming from someone that has worked in the industry. So take that uppity transplant, ignorance, experienced bullshit elsewhere.
Adventurous_Cod9854 t1_jcgq0wv wrote
I fully understand that money can be spent to successfully control pests, that’s my point. I don’t understand why the concept of a problem that can actually be solved is more distasteful than living in a colorful cardboard box.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments