At first glance I thought it said Hooker street, so you might be able to turn it into an income property. It’s like the old saying “Location, location, location”.
Must be infuriating a run down house in a big city is worth that much. I’ve seen houses like this in flyover country. Usually they can be had for under 10-15K depending on the size of the property.
Less than 1 mile from the Coliseum, although probably not the most pleasant walk. Tear it down, build something from the ground up and charge $3,000 a night during the Olympics.
Jamin’s problem is that he tries to time markets instead of just finding a place at a reasonable price (to him). Instead, I think he wants to find the places that are desirable to him but ridiculously overpriced (to him), and point at them each week on these forums, and use hope as a strategy that they crash hard, so he can then feel he’s able to get something at his own assessment of the value.
There's a much more complex set of tradeoffs involved in the buy v. rent equation if you live in an uber-expensive city (measured w.r.t. local incomes).
In a normal U.S. town, the only downside to buying a house v. renting an apartment is that you pay a little more.
In a city like San Francisco or Seattle
* People change jobs every couple years, and their jobs/incomes are not as secure as they like to think.
* Traffic and transportation routes change often.
* Buying a house is 2-3x times more expensive than renting an apartment (in terms of monthly expenses)
* Most houses are quite crummy because the local economy changed dramatically (So you have upper-class households occupying houses built for lower-class people 100 years ago)
* The mania around house buying recently is so severe that you can easily overpay by 50% if you're not careful. I see houses that are by any conceivable measure inferior to another selling for twice as much, sometimes. It's almost to predict how much a house will sell for.