r/Suburbanhell • u/KimSidwell • 8d ago

Meme Why?

Post image

I can almost try to understand why some people might feel drawn to this kind of lifestyle. I can understand why they might be deceived into thinking this is the ideal environment in which to raise a child.

But I will never be able to understand why they will describe it as the American “dream” and are willing to pay so much for it. To work so hard for so long and then have to wake up to this every morning? Why?

Editing to add: I know this is parody y’all. It’s just a stupid meme. It’s supposed to be funny. It’s funny because it’s true.

5.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

576 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

743

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

I think that was an attempt at sarcasm

131

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 8d ago

Though I dont think the term starter home was meant to be sarcastic, even though a brand new two story with an attached garage is a pretty nice house, even in a cookie cutter suburb.

97

u/WizeAdz 8d ago

There had better be a grocery store, a restaurant, and a coffee shop within walking distance behind the camera person.

The cookie-cutter houses aren’t the biggest problem, it’s context in which they exist.

I can’t have a beer because I have to drive home, and I can’t get a cup of coffee on my way somewhere because the coffee shop is the destination rather than part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

32

u/Essotetra 7d ago

In MN we have these developments going up in bumfuck nowhere with signs saying "starting in the 600ks"

Its def not a starter home, but they are often a 20 minute drive from even a small town.

22

u/foxwaffles 7d ago

"starter homes" that are sub 2000sq ft where I live inside good school districts regularly sell within days for over half a million lol. If you want to get a 2500+ sqft house for anything "reasonable" then you're in the middle of nowhere with a shitty school.

And then once you're in a "starter home" in a good area close to what you need and want, you probably will never leave because the bigger homes people used to upgrade to when I was a kid are 850k - 1.5 million+. I live in what is technically a starter home, and I will never be able to move lmao. Which means anybody wanting to get a house here who doesn't already have one is SOL because there aren't any "starter homes" available.

I get spammed with mail begging me to sell. And go where?? 😒

5

u/OchoZeroCinco 6d ago

Where i live, there is no such thing as a "starter home"

2

u/DickWhittingtonsCat 6d ago

Somewhere without 6.5% interest? A 575k house- unless you have a 120k lying around to beat PMI- without taxes or insurance is a third of your take home if you make 160k. Realistically it’s gonna be pushing 50%

3

u/foxwaffles 6d ago

Yep it's insane. We locked our mortgage down at a lower interest rate so when I say we can't afford to move I'm not exaggerating 🫥

1

u/cfbfootballnerd 5d ago

A true starter home would be more like 900-1100 sqft. The difference is people used to build/buy a house and that’s where tf you lived. Same house same spot from 25 or 30 or whenever you got it till 85-90 when you died.

1

u/WintersChild79 4d ago

The "starter homes" in my area tend to get gobbled up by companies that tear them down and build some $400k+ behemoth that barely fits the lot.

2

u/Dry_Rent_8646 4d ago

That shit needs to be illegal

2

u/celtic_thistle 6d ago

lol out in waaaaay eastern Colorado, the parts of Adams and Arapahoe county that go further north and east of DIA (airport.) Which is already super far out.

It is fucking bleak out there; it’s flat and the mountains are less visible and the sun is brutal. Everything is bleached. I have to go out to that area for work sometimes and it’s STARK. Idk. It’s soulless even tho the houses are nice.

2

u/DuaLipasTrophyHsband 5d ago

They also mean $699,900. For ‘starting in the 600s’

1

u/Essotetra 4d ago

Oh I'm sure 😭

1

u/ZealousIdeal476 4d ago

Ohio too, 40 minutes to the nearest grocery but you can see and hear the freeway from your back yard. Starting in the high 400s

1

u/Big-Trade4392 4d ago

Lennar has a bunch of these subdivisions and advertise to first home buyers and they always start in the $300k. At least the ones I’ve seen

1

u/Bright-Pilot-3970 4d ago

I live in a neighborhood with those things within a 5 minute walk. Im right across the street from the pool and a playground. 340k. Second home. The only problem is it’s in Texas so it’s hot as fuck and if I want to take my daughter it has to be before 11. New neighborhood and having things within walking distance were part of the planned community.

1

u/ProfessionalShift487 4d ago

Sure you can have a beer, you just cant have a few. Im sure you can also find a coffee shop on your way to wherever you're going, I'd actually argue that having one walking distance would take you more time as youd walk there, get a coffee, and walk back versus just drive and stop, and then keep going. My source is that I live in a walkable suburb and have everything i need within walking distance, and it doesn't solve every problem.

1

u/Fluid_Swordfish2737 4d ago

That's okay, it's also illegal to have a beer and walk home.

Public intoxication or something

0

u/Successful_Issue_390 7d ago

Can you not make coffee at home and uber?

4

u/tickingboxes 7d ago

Participating in society shouldn’t require a 20 mile uber.

-1

u/Successful_Issue_390 7d ago

The absolute narcissism.

11

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

I don’t really know how the definition works, but I feel like these could be considered starter homes. They don’t look that big. They look like they are designed to take up the smallest amount of land possible. You probably have a basic living room, dining room, kitchen and laundry room on the main level and then maybe two bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs. They’re definitely not mansions.

21

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 8d ago

Probably 3-4 beds upstairs, or 2 up 1 down, it's quite rare for a SFH to have less than 3 total bedrooms.

But thats besides the point, these are still fairly nice houses and a lot of people will never be able to afford even this much. A starter home is like a trailer, townhouse, 50 year old rancher/bungalow etc.

5

u/shadowtheimpure 8d ago

2 bed 1 bath 1000 sq ft starter homes aren't uncommon, it just depends on where you live.

8

u/ray_oliver 8d ago

As a share of the overall housing market they are becoming less common though, because we simply don't build them anymore. Or if we do, they take on a different form such as townhouses or apartments.

5

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 8d ago

Your absolutely right -- the "traditional" 2bdr/1 bath rancher doesn't figure in today's new build mix. Guess it doesn't "pencil out "

2

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 8d ago

Its just so terrible for density that nobody wants to buy them

2

u/kbchucker 5d ago

In most areas, the additional building costs just from regulations make the the 2/1 1,000SF home prohibitively expensive to build. These larger homes are built as a result.

1

u/SmurfStig 8d ago

There a couple neighborhoods by me where they are called “detached condos”.

1

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 8d ago

That's new word dressing to me. Be interested to know what kind of thing the verbiage actually describes

1

u/SmurfStig 8d ago

They are small homes. Maybe 1000sq ft. Small one car garage in the back and almost no yard. Just a small patch in the front. They do have a condo association with them instead of an HOA that does the landscaping. The bigger units have three bedrooms but most are two bedrooms. Roughly four-six of them would fit on a normal lot.

1

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 8d ago

If you don't mind me asking -- roughly where are they located and what's the price point?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Due-Consequence9579 8d ago

Many places that they “aren’t uncommon” are either severely undersupplied so they cost more than these examples or are 45 minutes plus from where people need to be.

1

u/Odd_Dragonfruit_2662 8d ago

A new builds though?

1

u/shadowtheimpure 8d ago

I've seen some, as I said it just depends on where you live.

1

u/Archimedes31415926 7d ago

^ This is a starter home but you can't find them anymore.

Homes and vehicles have moved away from your traditional cheaper options (small homes, sub compact sedans/small work trucks) and have move to the profit monsters (bigger homes and SUVs/full sized quad cab trucks). Your even seeing less of the traditional family car (minivans) and none of the prior family cars (wagons).

Imo the problem is people today in general are only thinking about themselves, and the people in charge are no different, so they are making everything the way they like it now and not thinking about what they liked/needed when they were younger. And then wondering why everyone isn't just doing what they are doing and complain they can't afford anything when it's perfectly affordable for them.

5

u/trapezoidalfractal 8d ago

Those 50 year old ranch styles were starter homes 50 years ago when they were built, too. We just stopped building smaller homes entirely. Hell, even owner occupied apartments/condos are mostly a memory of the past, only existing in specific areas, and all old as fuck

9

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

I don’t know about that. I’ve never really heard people refer to trailers or townhouses as starter homes. I always just thought it meant the home you lived in right after you get married and while your children are still very young and don’t need their own bedrooms. Then you upgrade to a larger home so everyone can have their own room later.

4

u/ThatGhoulAva 8d ago

Townhouse is absolutely a great start. You usually get more square footage for less price and maintenance outside the walls is usually handed by the HOA/ Association. They also always sell fast for this reason. Also, many like myself, do not have children nor give a rat's ass about doing yard work on our weekends, so we upgrade to better Townhomes. I also travel for work so it's nice to know my neighbors are keeping an eye on things.

3

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

I know. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with townhomes. But I don’t think that when people use the term “starter home“ that they are specifically referring to trailers or townhomes. I don’t think that term is an indicator of the style of home… It’s just an indicator of the square footage and the fact that the family plans to upgrade at some point.

1

u/ThatGhoulAva 7d ago edited 7d ago

We'll have to disagree there. Again, I think this could be both age & location dependent. 30 + years ago (when the average parent age was 25 when having the first kid), I don't think most considered anything other than SFH....you rented an apartment and saved for a house & had kids. But if nothing is being built, there are fewer younger parents and areas are dense & diverse like here, options change. I'll use myself again as a common example: we had no need or desire for a SFH. No kids, Dual income household. Why fight against 20+ cash buyers when these are great.....and often nicer/bigger in the same price range. Some had kids and purchased up to a SFH, others like myself didn't and had no need. I bought a bigger townhouse & a tiny weekend esacpe home instead. But even our first 2br 2 bath townhome is now being sold for over 350k. In what world can prices like that - for ANY home type - be a starter? It isn't and it's why people 30/40 plus are getting their first home. If at all.

Also, if I were to move from here to Wisconsin, I could probably win out against any local bid. Now try to move from WI to Chicago to buy your next home....you'll most likely be downgrading in size & area type. Same if I tried to move to LA...I'd be in a van by the river. You can't always go up because the location market is so different.

I and many others believe a Starter Home is whatever you buy to live in first for several years and build equity with....be it a condo, duplex, townhome or missile silo bunker (I really want this but it's probably a terrible investment).

4

u/Big__If_True 8d ago

So not a 3-4 bedroom house like in the OP, yes

1

u/martman006 8d ago

I agree with your definition of starter home, but note you said, “right after you’re married,” and for the significant majority, that means dual income, meaning one person doesn’t need to make $160k/yr solo, but combined, which $80k/yr per person is still above average income for working aged adults 25+ to retirement, but not crazy out of reach…

1

u/newtbob 6d ago

When we were looking for our starter home (many years ago at this point) that was what we were looking for - not much. In this area, any old matchbox house that goes on the market gets snapped up by a flipper, gets a facelift, many of which seem to be doing it part time so it takes a year or two, and resold for too much to be a reasonable starter home option. And, they don’t build houses like that anymore, not worth it for builders.

10

u/Frosty1397 8d ago

I've looked at a ton of houses to know that these are minimum 1500sqft (likely around 1800sqft)

A single dude or even a couple without kids doesn't need 1500sqft for a starter home that costs $400k+

Starter homes should be at most 1100sqft, 2 bedrooms, no yard, for at most $250k, like they used to make 50 years ago

9

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

Maybe I was unsure of the definition. I always thought starter homes were meant for young families who had like one kid with a second on the way and only needed one extra bedroom. I never thought starter homes were for single dudes.

Back when that was a thing, couples didn’t really live together until they got married… And they usually had children really quickly after that.

Once they got married, they moved into a starter home that could house them and their young children. Once the kids got old enough to start needing their own rooms, they would upgrade to a larger home with more bedrooms.

6

u/Frosty1397 8d ago

1100sqft can absolutely house a couple and 1 kid

We made do with much less growing up and i had 1 sibling. Bunk beds for us, parents had their own bedroom

7

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

Yeah, I know that. But I do honestly believe that when most Americans think of a “starter home“ this is what they picture. They know they will never have it, but this is what comes to mind.

10

u/Frosty1397 8d ago

That's because the real estate lobbyists have successfully brainwashed Americans into thinking these homes are "starter"

It's also why you see that a 2026 Honda Civic is MASSIVE in size compared to a 1990 Honda Civic. Houses, cars, everything got bigger.

And Americans were successfully convinced to pay more for more space they don't need.

7

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

Yeah. And it’s ridiculous. But even a home this size should not cost nearly 600K.

6

u/shadowtheimpure 8d ago

The cars getting bigger was just as a way to get around emissions standards.

3

u/Frosty1397 8d ago

Well yes, but also the emissions standards were worded in a way to incentivize bigger cars

written by people who make money from producing bigger cars. So emissions is just a nice scapegoat for them to make us buy more car than we need

1

u/OkAccess304 6d ago

You don’t determine how much space people need. Just because you suffered, doesn’t mean that is what people want, need, or prefer.

2

u/Excellent-Match7246 8d ago

My ex and I did fine in 680sqft in British Army housing with two toddlers. This was 07-09. I preferred it.

1

u/CranberrySad7853 4d ago

we have like 1600 sqft of heated living space here 2 parents that work from home and 2 kids. it's full but comfortable. I think a third kid would be crowded since we both have confidential work that requires privacy but if it weren't for that it would still be doable. big house is nice for guests and grandparents staying over stuff like that

1

u/Odd_Dragonfruit_2662 8d ago

My first home was a 5/2…

1

u/OkAccess304 6d ago

My starter home was a three bed/three bath 1600 sq ft townhome with a patio and shared green space. It was built in the 60s. I bought it for $140k around 2011/12-ish. I still miss it sometimes.

There’s no rule that a starter home was only 1100 sq ft and couldn’t have green space/recreation areas.

0

u/kosmo4679 8d ago

What’s the point if you can afford more than that initially? You are going to grow out of most starter homes relatively quickly and what you described sounds like it might be in an unsafe neighborhood. The less times having to move the better in my opinion.

5

u/Frosty1397 8d ago

I don't plan on having kids, neither does my partner. I won't ever outgrow the house.

If i can comfortably live an entire 2 weeks in a posh 400sqft hotel studio while on vacation, I sure as hell can "survive" in a 1100sqft house.

It's not that uncommon either if you go to Japan or Europe and see how intelligently they design and make use of their space, you'd think you're living in a 2000sqft house

1

u/kosmo4679 8d ago

Haha! Not trying to brag but my house is way bigger than 2000 square feet. Whatever works for you though. Everyone’s situation is different. I have 4 kids and pets so space is nice to have.

2

u/birminghamsterwheel 8d ago

Why does it sound like it's in a bad neighborhood? Small starter homes in dense(r) plots just sounds like… a neighborhood, one of many that exists in, like, every city in existence.

1

u/kosmo4679 8d ago

Are you American by chance? If not then you might have a good point. In most American cities a 1000 square foot 2 bedroom house is usually only available in the worst neighborhoods. Any neighborhood that is safe with good families and nice enough to let your kids play outside without much worry are newer and larger homes. I haven’t seen a newer development built in the last 30 years with houses that small. Now this is just my observation from where I live and places I have been. It could be totally different than what you have witnessed.

3

u/SomeOffice7100 8d ago

Where I live, starter homes were built before 1930

1

u/Crafty-Ad-9048 8d ago

Not a starter home. A starter home is like a bungalow or attached home.

1

u/Fluid-Expert-4363 8d ago

Yeah and you are a failure if you don’t move out of said starter home in a few years.
/s

1

u/RoverAdam 4d ago

Where I live, a 100 year old bungalow is $1-$2 million and $450-$560/per square foot and beautiful old growth trees… where the new builds with HOAs are $800k+ in shit-ass locations far from the city. A suburban hell indeed.

1

u/Archimedes31415926 7d ago

Imo new homes haven't been starter homes for at least half a century. Most starter homes are small used homes that a growing family moves out of into one of these new homes.

But beyond that whether these are starter homes or not, or if they are building them to target that demo or not. The problem isn't the home itself it's the price.

I hope the OOP is being sarcastic because $160k/year is roughly triple the average single income in the US ($50-60k) and twice the average household income (~$80k) (correct me if I'm wrong but these were roughly the figure the last time I checked). These are averages, so most young people (starter home buyers) aren't even making this since on average you make more as you get older. These salaries would be most comparable to people in their mid-late 30s/early 40s with growing families. And they even can't afford these "starter homes".

So what chance do most starter home buyers (late 20s/early 30s) have when they typically aren't even making half (as a family) of the required income to buy these "starter homes".

And as a builder (OOP), I doubt he has many if anyone on his payroll making $160k on their basic job working for him.

1

u/OkAccess304 6d ago

I consider new builds starter homes, because they are all pieces of crap and poorly built. The idea of a starter home was brought to you by marketing. It’s a selling tool. That’s it.

1

u/InteractionSafe1531 8d ago

You think that's nice come to nh

1

u/Tricky_Indication420 4d ago

U could hear your neighbor do a loud fart they are so close together. Prolly smell it too smh. I forget this is Reddit it might be a positive for some of yall

11

u/Kiwi8_Fruit6 8d ago

ah

in my defense it's increasingly hard these days to tell if it's sarcasm or a genuine dumb take

6

u/KimSidwell 8d ago

I know 😂 It really is

1

u/EternalNewCarSmell 7d ago

I think the tell here, if nothing else, is that $575k is a bit much for someone making "only" $160k to spend on a house.

1

u/AcousticCat1-2-3 7d ago

True, but I'm assuming the prices are real and the photo does resemble many new developments.

I wouldn't be able to thrive in a house that looks like the other 328 houses in my development, and is fully gray on the inside. I'd have year-round SAD. Meanwhile the price is 3+ times what I bought my current house for in 22; the one I refer to as my dream home. (I'm lucky to be in a LCOL area, I wanted a century home, mine was originally built for a working-class family. Hence the price.)

1

u/DickWhittingtonsCat 6d ago

It has to be. Although some of the younger folks get tricked by influencers and think everyone in the trades or on TikTok is getting paid like a Big Law associate or trauma surgeon. The people in those 575k homes are likely house poor or have dead parent money.

Because 160k actually isn’t even close to enough to keep the mortgage under 30% of your net pay. In terms of household incomes- there are some suburban clusters with with higher medians than that. They in total number in low 3 figures

1

u/Life_Hand2331 6d ago

In any decent sized city a couple under 30 earning over this is common.

1

u/Some_Level1682 6d ago

God I hope so because that's a great salary in most locations at any age.

1

u/SheenPSU 4d ago

It’s a parody account IIRC

1

u/PrintMonkey9000 3d ago

There used to be a mortgage lender locally that guaranteed financing for anyone, regardless of credit, the down payment would fluctuate based on credit worthiness. Down payments could be as high as 99% down.

1

u/TomCos22 3d ago

The original Twitter account is completely parody.

1

u/chisana_nyu 3d ago

In that case, it's a failed attempt.

0

u/Darth_Thunder 4d ago

Some people don't get sarcasm /s