SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-those-square-feet-are...deep-AND-tall! dept.
I've seen the price of real estate resume its seemingly relentless rise, but this is insane. A tiny (897 square-foot; 83.6 square meter) house in Palo Alto, California is situated on a 4361 square-foot (405 square meter) lot and has been placed on the market for $2.59 Million:
The little home at 128 Middlefield Road, has two-bedrooms, one-bathroom but is just 15 minutes away from Googleplex and the other tech giants, making the small home in high demand.
[...] The home was sold back in 2008 for just $899,000 and the current price tag is actually below market value for the area today.
The house was built in 1924 and has been remodeled through the years to keep it current.
The actual asking price is unclear. The Daily Mail article (first link) claims a price of $2.59 million, but he broker listing in the embedded link shows the price being $1,988,000; quite a bit less, but still quite expensive.
The article has pictures of each room as well as the yard; it looks to me like a quite nice home. One of the pictures shows a bulkhead, but I saw no mention of a basement.
If this tiny house costs this much, what would be considered a starter home? And how much would that cost? Though I realize this story is about Palo Alto, I understand there are other places in the world with sky high real estate prices. London, Singapore, and Hong Kong come to mind.
What are housing prices like in your area... how much would it cost you to buy a home comparable to this one, or to rent an apartment of equivalent size?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @06:44PM (1 child)
A fresh graduate from one of the nation's elite technical schools would no doubt find a SV environment, full of like people, stimulating to be in, regardless of the ridiculous cost. Until they are unpersoned for being old or committing crimethink.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:57PM
> Until they are unpersoned for being old
I seriously suspect one of the motivations for age discrimination is that young workers lack experience to have a good feel for when too much is being asked of them. They'll shut down their social lifes, won't have any significant others to hang with or kids to raise, work late for no extra pay, not really understand how much worse it is to have a pay package that is on a 1099 basis rather than a W2 and which does not include health insurance, skimp on sleep, ignore their health, and darn near kill themselves deathmarching to get that project finished by the insanely short deadline that management in their greed hoped was the absolute fastest it could be done. Their newness to the workplace makes them naive, easy targets for all kinds of sweatshop bullcrap-- the gaslighting, bullying, fake threats that their careers will be ruined forever if they don't buckle down and work even harder, etc. They'll be too afraid to dare to contradict management almost no matter how crazy the demands get.
And of course management can drive home the point that their jobs are very, very insecure and they need to toe the line, by periodically terminating yet another long time employee who turned into an old codger and dared to act a little too independent.
Yeah, anyone who'd pay that kind of money for a house marks themselves as a chump. They might as well post a sign on their ass that says "do me, boss!"