Quantcast

Comments about ‘About Utah: Father of Modern Condominiums will never live in one’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 15 2012 10:52 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Smart man, I have to agree with his philosophy. There is nothing like privacy and independence of restrictions to how you live.

Condominiums have never been a real appeal to the general population, but it is a substitute alternative for family to shuffle their parents and grand parents out of their homes to confiscate their property and life's earnings.

The only logical use there is for condominiums is campus dormitories or temporary housing for transient military and students and homeless families. They are a poor investment and a poor substitutes for a home to own and the elderly to live in.

Utah Native
Farmington, UT

I disagree that a condominium is a poor substitute for a home for the elderly to live in. My grandparents purchased one of the Aztec Condominiums on 10th back when they were new. Living there allowed them to travel for great lengths of time without having to worry about yardwork or snow removal, and covered parking for their vehicles. There was a pool for the grandkids and a comminuty room and kitchen for large family parties. The living aspect was as homey as any single-family dwelling and reflected the personality of its occupants. I enjoyed reading about the man who came up with the concept and appreciate how it contributed to comfortable living circumstances for my grandparents for 30 years.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

[They are a poor investment and a poor substitutes for a home to own and the elderly to live in.]

Homes aren't a great investment anymore. Property value fluctuates due to reasons outside a homeowner's control, and the "equity" gained on a home is mostly just inflation.

Many want to live in the city, and condos and apartments are the only feasible option. Many don't want to commute for several hours a day.

Don't make this story what it is not. Just because the guy doesn't live in a Condo, doesn't mean he doesn't think they're a valid option, he said so himself that he supports them for other people with other needs. He "invented" them because there was a need.

Times have changed, and "home ownership" isn't the necessity or boon it once was. Suburbs are dropping in value in many parts of the country, as young, educated adults are preferring the city, with suburbs consisting largely of elderly adults and low-income families. When these educated adults do settle-down, which they tend to do an older age, they have small families that can still live in the city.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

What are all you talking about?

2Cents - Romney never said they were no good.... he just prefers to live in the house he raised his family in. It had nothing to do with economics or investment value. I have a condo in Park City. I still clear about 10k a year on it. I have another on the Carolina cost. I own it for free because I rent it in the summer which pays the total expenses for it the rest of the year. I put down 20K.... in 10 years I end up with a 250K asset paid for by others. How is that a bad investment? Someone has to own these places that non-home-owners live in. Where is it you think these "renters" live?

My mother in law now lives in a condo since her husband passed. She lives in it because she chooses to be independent. She is woven from a different cloth than Romney. She doesn't want to rely on anyone, and he condo provides her that freedom to be fully independent. Not right or wrong - just a different choice.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments