Thursday, May 21, 2009

dilemna.

We went to go see 2 houses today, and we are TORN between them! They both have something the other doesn't have... which means if we combined them we'd have the perfect house! But no... things don't work that way.

So I've made a pro/con list for each house. Of course. Check it out. :)
(Click to make larger)
Thoughts? Which should we pick?

4 comments:

Karen Solomon said...

My first instinct sides with the 2005 house. 5 Minutes is not a big difference. It is harder to add closet space then new flooring. Landscaping is really expensive to change.

Paige said...

Agree. Sounds like the older house has more fundamental problems, like less space and room size. Those are a lot bigger hassle than driving a little further to work/friends/family. The updates sound a little easier to make too. I'm not an expert and we're not as far in the process as you guys are, but on paper it seems like a pretty easy choice...

Katie said...

#1. It overall sounds better, and I feel like there is an underlying tone of you liking it more, but what do I know! haha

Plus once the recession is over, I'm sure the town will build out to where that house is so don't let it being a bit farther out influence your decision too much!

Kim Russell said...

I tend to agree with all of these comments. I think you will also appreciate the extra square footage of house #1. Neighborhoods are really important to resale value, too, and it sounds like #1 is the better choice in that regard, too. Keep praying about it, and I know the right decision will jump off the page for you.

1234 Mom :)