Visiting 3 Open Houses

This past weekend we got the idea to do a bit of casual house-hunting. ...Casual, because we haven't decided on moving; not even close. Our thought process was:

1. Hawk's job is moving to near Fremont and mine is remote
2. Let's reduce her commute
3. Housing is less expensive in Fremont anyway
4. Ooh, Zillow makes it easy to find listings online
5. Hey, it's a nice day and we can spare a few hours, let's pick 3 open houses and visit them.

So we visited 3 open houses on Sunday afternoon. The results were... mixed. Here's what we found.

House 1: The Handyman Special

The first house we visited was advertised as a "handyman special". That's real estate agent code for, "A lot of shit is falling apart and the seller has no desire to fix it." We decided to visit it anyway. The square footage was large and the price was low, very low.
To say the house needs a handyman is an understatement. It needs a bulldozer. Haphazard renovations left it looking weird, with a hugely exaggerated roof, a converted garage full of code violations, and a weird flow through rooms. Plus, while the house was totally empty (everything moved out) one of the rooms was disgustingly dirty. The owners hadn't even paid to clean the house before showing it.

Simply put, the house was a tear-down. ...But that alone isn't a deal killer! For a low purchase price we'd be willing to budget for serious renovations and end up with a house (re)built to our own tastes.The problem with that plan, though, is that the house is in a lower class neighborhood. The houses are close together, not exactly well maintained, and the street has lots of traffic with people driving aggressively because they're trying to get someplace else. It's not worth spending a lot of money to build the nicest house on a crummy block.

House 2: Two Living Rooms, Two Dining Rooms?

The next open house we visited was about 1/2 mile away from the first one, in the same town. Short distances can mean a lot in terms of real estate location. Here, the house was on a wider, tree-lined street that was clearly more of a middle class neighborhood. The houses were modestly sized but generally well maintained.

This house was built in the 1960s, as were many houses in the area. And, as is the case with many of these houses, it was added on to at some point. Additions can be a good thing, because many houses from that era are small compared to modern sensibilities. But additions can also be a bad thing when done poorly/cheaply, like with that Handyman Special.

Here the addition was mostly positive. A past owner added a "great room" on at the back of the house. They opened up the original kitchen/dining room into a large eat-in kitchen, which flowed into the open greatroom with a fireplace, a sitting area with a huge TV, and... another dining room. Oh, and there was also still the original, small living room up at the front of the house.

We liked the great room. The large space with open flow fits with how we live. The enlarged kitchen was nice, too. But one thing I hate in real estate is wasted space. Why have a second living room nobody uses? Why have two dining areas? Why have one dining area plus a former dining area that's now basically an overly large hall to the back of the house? Especially in the Bay Area, where space costs $1,000 per square foot even in middle-class towns, paying for gobs of wasted space due to poor design is a deal killer.

Oh, and as part of the not-quite-thought-through redesign, the tiny bathroom connected to the master bedroom was given a second door that opens into it from the great room. Hard no.

House 3: Almost Ideal. Almost....

Popularity telegraphed that the 3rd house we visited would be the nicest of the bunch. Driving through a quieter, middle class neighborhood suggested that; arriving and seeing multiple other families visiting it already (we were alone at the first two houses) confirmed it.

One thing about this house that caught our interest was the lot size. At nearly 1/4 acre (about 10,000 square feet) it is huge by Bay Area standards. And the owners had done beautiful landscaping... in part of the yard. In the part near the house was a huge and elegant patio. Then there was a fence to a side portion of the back hard with scraggly grass. I'm guessing they kept dogs out there. Maybe a goat.

Inside, the house also had an addition. A bonus room was tacked on behind the master bedroom. It was decorated as an office/sitting room. That would actually work great for us... except that we'd be fighting over who gets to use it! 😅

The house showed other signs of renovation. It, too, is from the 1960s, so again, it's par for the course. But again, these renovations were not all that well designed. The house had two living rooms and a tiny eat-in kitchen. There were two bathrooms, with the "main" one having a weird, S-shaped design and the master bath being just too small. I stood in the shower, closed the door, and brushed both elbows on the walls even standing stall.

Bottom Line

Each of the houses had pluses and minuses. The third was the closest to being one we'd say "Yes!' to. We liked the size of the yard, the outdoor entertaining space, and the office/workshop connected to the master bedroom. We didn't like the poorly laid out bathrooms or the undersized kitchen— even though it had nice, modern cabinets.

I remarked above that a house needing renovation does not make it a "No". The problem, though, with renovating a house that's already had renovations is that you're paying a premium for someone else's poor taste that you're just going to rip out. And fixing problems with bathroom and kitchen design are notoriously expensive. It's one thing to buy a tear-down at 20% below market and rebuilt it. It's another thing to pay full market and then have to spend 6 figures to turn it into the house we really want to live in.

All in all, though, visiting these three open houses was a good experience. We learned what to expect in the market around Fremont. If we become serious about making a move we'll shop for houses like #3 and look carefully for good design... or find a house like #1 that's a tear-down but in a better neighborhood.

I Replaced my Camera Bag

Hawk and I have been gradually replacing gear over the past few weeks that was stolen during our trip to Hawaii in April. I've dragged my feet on replacing a lot of my stuff because there's no enjoyment to go shopping for stuff that was stolen. It just feels like a chore. On the other hand, our trek to several waterfalls on Lewis Creek last Saturday made it clear that I really do need to replace my camera bag. Although I usually pack selected lenses and other gear into my hiking bag when I hike, a sturdy and capacious camera bag is critical for making sure I've got everything when I go from home to car, to plane, etc.

Several years ago I bought a sling pack from Tamrac. It was a very different style from the classic shaped camera bags I'd bought before then; those were the kind shaped like rectangular boxes with tufted pouches on the side. The sling was narrow, rounded, hugged against the body, and had a single shoulder strap. For $100 (in years-ago money) it seemed a bit frivolous... but a salesman at the brick-and-mortar photography store I was shopping demonstrated how it worked, and I decided to take the plunge.

That swoopy shape, single shoulder strap, and $100 price tag? Best damn camera bag I ever had.

Then some jerkface stole it. 🤬

Finding a replacement turned out to be hard. It seems Tamrac doesn't make that model any more. There's a smaller one, which is too small; and a bigger one, which is bulkier than I want. But some of the model that's just right are still left in the sales channel.

The one I owned for several years had a blue and gray exterior. I couldn't find that color combo anywhere except used. Ditto the black-and-gray combo. But I did find the red-and-gray version (pictured) for sale new... and at less than half the price I paid years ago. Score!

So, why do I like this bag so much that I hunted around for an exact replacement?

Well, I didn't insist on an exact replacement. I happily considered other bag styles. Candidates had to meet a few requirements: the right size overall, neither to big nor too small, to hold my camera with three lenses, plus accessories like filters, a spare battery, cleaning kit, data cable, etc.; plenty of securely zippered pockets or pouches to hold all those things and provide convenient access; good padding, because this bag literally goes around the world with me; and not heinously expensive. Some bags were 3-4x what I paid for this one. And you can see in the second picture (left/above) this bag is nicely padded with plenty of slots and pouches for the camera gear I carry.

The test will come a little over a week from now when I take the bag on the road (and in the air, and on the trail) on our trip to Sedona.

Low-Key Business Dinner. Baby Steps.

Business travel has been resuming slowly over the past several months. It's like it's taking baby steps.

   » In November we had a luncheon for area employees to meet the execs. It was travel in the sense that we went somewhere and met f2f... even though the travel was, for most of us, just a drive to downtown San Jose.

   » The first flight for a business trip wouldn't happen until our Sales Kickoff in March... by which point it was my first flight for work in 2 years, 2 weeks, and 2 days! But even the SKO was just another baby step as it was an internal meeting, no customers.

   » My first in-person-with-customers meeting since February 2020 is tomorrow. ...Though it's a drive-to event again; a trade show in San Jose. Baby steps!

   » But I'll have a fly-to event with customers next week, in Austin... unless that gets canceled like many other events have so far this year! 😨

So, I'm presenting at a trade show tomorrow. I'm teaching a 2.5 hour workshop with a colleague who flew into town this afternoon. Our boss came into town, too, though he won't be helping with the class tomorrow. The three of us met this evening for a business dinner.

Business dinner. BUSINESS DINNER! An opportunity to carouse on the company dime! ...At least that's how many sales teams treat it. Our dinner this evening was low-key.

Oh, we killed a bunch of fish at a sushi restaurant near the hotel, but there was no carousing. The bill of $150 (before tip) for 3 of us included only $20 of alcohol. I had one beer, my boss had one small bottle of sake, and that was it as far as booze was concerned. We all had sodas or iced tea as our main drinks.

We didn't even stay out late. Normally a business dinner of colleagues who've scarcely seen each other f2f would stretch late into the evening. Tonight we wrapped it up at 6:30. Both my colleagues were tired and want to wind down doing other things. One wanted to call his wife. I dropped them back at their hotel and drove home. I was back in my own house a whiff after 7pm. 7PM! Most business dinners are only getting started at 7pm!

Baby steps.