Having a second weekend home

[AdamMGrossman]

My family has had a second home in a beach town for five years.  Here are my observations:

1. You should recognize that a second home isn't an altogether rational economic decision.  In my case, the cost (beyond the purchase price) isn't too bad. Last year it was $25,000 -- about half of that was taxes, and then there were utilities and repairs, etc. -- but that money would certainly be more productive in an investment account.  Just don't buy so much house that you are not only subtracting from your retirement savings but also unduly burdening your budget.

2. I would think carefully about buying a house three hours away.  Traveling long distances with kids can be tiring for everyone.  And, as the kids get older, they may not want to be away every weekend due to sports practices and other activities.  We considered a location that was 1.5 hours away but bought a house in a town that is just 1 hour away, and that really seems to make a difference in terms of how much everyone tolerates the back-and-forth.

If your heart is really set on this town, maybe you want to get a rental there for a month each summer.  That will allow you to try it out before you make a bigger financial commitment.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I know someone with a couple of weekend homes. I go to them once or twice a year each and play. Meanwhile, he's doing maintenance or mowing the lawn.

[StarTrekDoc]

We took an RV rental out for the first time this summer.   That is a very viable 2nd home that we're entertaining.

[llessac15]

OP here. Thanks for the replies. I don't think I'll be brave enough to pull the trigger on a weekend home that is 3 hrs away for a few more years. If 5 or so years go by and I still want to move there, I may reconsider it. I'll be in a better financial spot by then and I'll have a better idea of which direction life is taking us.

[q-school]

Vagabond MD wrote:

q-school wrote:

jz wrote:

I’ll respond to the false notion of being pinned down to a vacation spot.  That’s a false dichotomy.   When we’ve wanted adventure, we traveled to Tanzania, Costa Rica, Belize, Ecuador, Peru, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Poland, Canada. When we needed rest, we traveled to the vacation house only 1.5 hours away; no need to be at the airport at a certain time, no packing needed, no crowds.  We picked up groceries on the way.

Click to expand…

yes but for the original poster with three hour distance and young kids who will likely have weekend commitments, the likelihood is that there will be a tradeoff.  i think there are always lots of options depending on where you are in life, age of kids, how close to FI you are.  i’m curious to see if in 10 years poster will still want to retire with young kids on verge of expensive college years.  there’s always one more year to work just to lock finances down.  

most who responded here probably assume it is likely that the place will have minimal use many years.  however, if they don’t mind the three hour drive and the kids don’t have sports or chess or birthday parties, they may actually use it a lot.  I think it falls under the heading of lots of stuff we spend money on–  not to be viewed as an investment, just a wanted item.  the value/enjoyment is individual.  while it may not prevent travel to other places, it may prevent other investment or retirement opportunities.  we ultimately never know until we try, do we?



 

Click to expand…

Perhaps unique to my personal my circumstances:

1. I was on call every other weekend for 21 years. I probably would not see a weekend getaway often enough to make it worthwhile. There are places people go, but they do not interest me. (No mountains, no beaches.)

2. Where I live in the Midwest, there are no places that I can think of that I would rather be than home within 100-150 miles of my home.

 

Click to expand...

maybe you should learn to fly?

 

[VagabondMD]

q-school wrote:

jz wrote:

I’ll respond to the false notion of being pinned down to a vacation spot.  That’s a false dichotomy.   When we’ve wanted adventure, we traveled to Tanzania, Costa Rica, Belize, Ecuador, Peru, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Poland, Canada. When we needed rest, we traveled to the vacation house only 1.5 hours away; no need to be at the airport at a certain time, no packing needed, no crowds.  We picked up groceries on the way.

Click to expand…

yes but for the original poster with three hour distance and young kids who will likely have weekend commitments, the likelihood is that there will be a tradeoff.  i think there are always lots of options depending on where you are in life, age of kids, how close to FI you are.  i’m curious to see if in 10 years poster will still want to retire with young kids on verge of expensive college years.  there’s always one more year to work just to lock finances down.  

most who responded here probably assume it is likely that the place will have minimal use many years.  however, if they don’t mind the three hour drive and the kids don’t have sports or chess or birthday parties, they may actually use it a lot.  I think it falls under the heading of lots of stuff we spend money on–  not to be viewed as an investment, just a wanted item.  the value/enjoyment is individual.  while it may not prevent travel to other places, it may prevent other investment or retirement opportunities.  we ultimately never know until we try, do we?



 

Click to expand...

Perhaps unique to my personal my circumstances:

1. I was on call every other weekend for 21 years. I probably would not see a weekend getaway often enough to make it worthwhile. There are places people go, but they do not interest me. (No mountains, no beaches.)

2. Where I live in the Midwest, there are no places that I can think of that I would rather be than home within 100-150 miles of my home.

 

[q-school]

jz wrote:

I’ll respond to the false notion of being pinned down to a vacation spot.  That’s a false dichotomy.   When we’ve wanted adventure, we traveled to Tanzania, Costa Rica, Belize, Ecuador, Peru, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Poland, Canada. When we needed rest, we traveled to the vacation house only 1.5 hours away; no need to be at the airport at a certain time, no packing needed, no crowds.  We picked up groceries on the way.

Click to expand...

yes but for the original poster with three hour distance and young kids who will likely have weekend commitments, the likelihood is that there will be a tradeoff.  i think there are always lots of options depending on where you are in life, age of kids, how close to FI you are.  i'm curious to see if in 10 years poster will still want to retire with young kids on verge of expensive college years.  there's always one more year to work just to lock finances down.  

most who responded here probably assume it is likely that the place will have minimal use many years.  however, if they don't mind the three hour drive and the kids don't have sports or chess or birthday parties, they may actually use it a lot.  I think it falls under the heading of lots of stuff we spend money on--  not to be viewed as an investment, just a wanted item.  the value/enjoyment is individual.  while it may not prevent travel to other places, it may prevent other investment or retirement opportunities.  we ultimately never know until we try, do we?



 

[SValleyMD]

Chalk up another one for it.

It's been one of my main goals and can't wait until I pull it off.

My spot is also 1.5 hours a way and I hope to retire there.

3 hours away would make me think a little more but if u want it go for it

[jz]

I'll respond to the false notion of being pinned down to a vacation spot.  That's a false dichotomy.   When we've wanted adventure, we traveled to Tanzania, Costa Rica, Belize, Ecuador, Peru, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Poland, Canada. When we needed rest, we traveled to the vacation house only 1.5 hours away; no need to be at the airport at a certain time, no packing needed, no crowds.  We picked up groceries on the way.

[VagabondMD]

I have toyed with the idea of a second home on multiple occasions in the past, always passed, and am glad that I did. I like the idea of traveling to different places and fear that having a second home would pin me down.

I am also burned out maintaining my one home and loathe the idea of dealing with repairs and upkeep of another one. I certainly do understand the allure, but it's not for me.

[PhysicianOnFIRE]

Craigy wrote:

IMO a second weekend home is a little much. Most of us plebeians make do with just one weekend home, or without any weekend home at all.

Click to expand...

  My first thought, reading this title at about 0300, was that I should be glad to be home three weekends a month. This guy's just hoping to have a second weekend home a month.

[djohnflatfeecfp]

I do not have a separate home, but thought I would share some advice from some of my friends who dealt with similar situations.

First, two of them (one a surgeon) had young kids. Instead of buying a separate cabin/cottage/weekend house they decided to install pools at their homes.  Their kids were involved in so much stuff on the weekends (sports, clubs, scouts, birthday parties, etc) they could not get away enough to justify the extra residence.

Another friend has a cabin in the woods about two hours away.  He told me once years ago he used to have a better place but it was three hours away and they never went to it. His informal analysis was anything under two hours made it reasonable for them to visit on a regular basis.

[RosieQ]

I have never liked the idea of a second home for vacationing. You are tied to maintenance, taxes and an extra mortgage which makes it hard to break even when compared to the usual vacation costs. In order to break even you have to visit there very frequently and at the expense of other locations- and there is a lot of amazing stuff to see and do around the world. I suspect that renting a place in this other town on Air BnB or similar would likely be the best choice. Save your money, retire and perhaps relocate and buy in your preferred location at that time.

[q-school]

Craigy wrote:

IMO a second weekend home is a little much.  Most of us plebeians make do with just one weekend home, or without any weekend home at all.     

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

It depends on how much this 2nd home costs and how much you use it.

A friend of mine likes to say that for a fraction of the cost of owning a vacation home, he can simply rent a vacation home several times a year, as nice as he wants, go to a different one each time, and leave the dirty dishes in the sink on the way out.  Zero worry about maintenance, upkeep, the neighbors, tax, storms, condo assessments, anything.

But obviously if you’re going 30 or 40x a year, it’s cheaper to own something than to rent.

Click to expand...

we've always rented even though we go back to the same places over and over.

the arguments about mortgage being minimum you spend and renting being maximum hold even more true for second home until you are truly FI.

although many of my partners who bought little places in aspen in the 80s seem to have done well with them.  i just think its much harder now, and I recognize that I may be completely wrong.

also the fact that my wife would never let me rent a second home means it is all a big drain on my family budget.  nothing in, only outs.

but as she always reminds me, can't take it with you.  that's what it's there for.  

 

[Craigy]

IMO a second weekend home is a little much.  Most of us plebeians make do with just one weekend home, or without any weekend home at all.     :lol:

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

It depends on how much this 2nd home costs and how much you use it.

A friend of mine likes to say that for a fraction of the cost of owning a vacation home, he can simply rent a vacation home several times a year, as nice as he wants, go to a different one each time, and leave the dirty dishes in the sink on the way out.  Zero worry about maintenance, upkeep, the neighbors, tax, storms, condo assessments, anything.

But obviously if you're going 30 or 40x a year, it's cheaper to own something than to rent.