{"id":872,"date":"2006-11-16T11:13:50","date_gmt":"2006-11-16T15:13:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/snarl\/2006\/11\/16\/too-good-to-be-true\/"},"modified":"2006-11-17T10:42:51","modified_gmt":"2006-11-17T14:42:51","slug":"too-good-to-be-true","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/2006\/11\/16\/too-good-to-be-true\/","title":{"rendered":"Too Good To Be True?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ok, I’m a liar. I admit it. I promised weeks ago that I’d cease blogging about my condo search. Well, here I go again:<\/p>\n

I saw a few condos yesterday. One was in Cambridgeport – a block from the river and behind Trader Joe’s (and near Whole Foods). It was listed as a “top floor” unit in a former two family house that felt like it’s own house.<\/p>\n

What it actually was was a former two-family house illegally subdivided into 4 units (two per floor) with no second means of egress. To enter the unit, one had to walk through an alley to the rear of the house (by weather damaged, flipped over lawn furniture) and then climb steep stairs to the second floor. The kitchen had a 1960’s mustard yellow oven on one side and a 1970’s stove top on the other side. The bedroom was about 7′ x 9′ and there was a mysterious door blocked by a curtain that we realized went to the neighboring apartment (not only was it an illegal subdivision…it was a low quality one).<\/p>\n

Not helping matters, the property felt MILES away from the nearest subway (despite it only being a 12-15 minute walk). As we were driving away, I also saw some sort of shady “deal” take place as a woman walked up to a car window and exchanged something with the driver.<\/p>\n

NEXT!<\/p>\n

Now, of the two units I was planning to see yesterday, that first\u00a0was the one I had the highest hopes for (the description made it sound lovely).<\/p>\n

The second unit I was to see was in Central Square. The price was over $61,000 less for the identical square footage so I had already planned to dismiss it as crap. In addition, the description was brutally honest, stating that it would require a brand new kitchen and bathroom.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, the broker and I approached this property with a bit of apprehension and an attitude of “we’ll use this property as a tool to prove why you get what you pay for.” However, we were pleasantly surprised!<\/p>\n

The condo felt HUGE (despite being the same size). The ceiling had to be 10 or 11 feet high. It had all of the original 1920’s details areound the door frames, windows and ceiling. The walls were freshly painted, the floors were being buffed. Contractors were on site finishing up a new roof. The windows were brand new and the heating system was being replaced.<\/p>\n

That said, the kitchen and bath were frightening. You’d literally have to start from scratch. The kitchen was 12’x8′ (a really decent size) but there were no cupboards or cabinets (or dishwasher). The bathroom was TINY (once again, a product of dividing the building into smaller units). However, the plumbing and electrical was supposedly good in both kitchen and bath. It appeared to simply be a (costly) cosmetic job.<\/p>\n

This unit is one block from the subway, on a quiet side street and has lots of windows. There is no wasted space as you go from room to room (no useless corridors). And being the cheapest unit of all that I’ve found, I could actually afford to put some money into a new kitchen.<\/p>\n

HHMMMM – the only down sides to this place are that:<\/p>\n