Townhouse or stand-alone house for a first home?
First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible. If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular).  So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings.  Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.).  You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance.   I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering.  In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations.  But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too.  You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors.  Does noise bother you?  Conversely, are you noisy?  In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area.  If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes. "I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being ""house-poor"" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term." "Houses tend to appreciate more than condos. Houses are also more expensive. So it's a choice. You mention your girlfriend will be buying it with you. Take the time now to decide what will happen if you split up and put it in writing. Are you splitting the downpayment and mortgage 50/50? If not things can get complicated. Also consider home improvement costs, etc. If you think she is ""the one"" and you'll end up starting a family together, look at the location, nearby schools, etc. Sure, it may sound too early to be thinking about these things, but if you get a head start on finding a nice house you could save a lot of money and build a lot of equity with some smart decisions today."
The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first.  In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first.  Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off.  Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life.  If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates.  Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home. Portlander here too! Have you made sure to consider the tax burden you will have from the inheritance? Investing in extra property is something that you should do when you are all paid up.  You don't want a job loss or other emergency make it impossible to keep the house you live in.  What happens if you buy a house and then lose both your jobs?  Do you let the bank foreclose on both homes? I think you would be in a much more stable position owning fully all your property.  Once your first house is paid off, you can rent that or consider buying another. The key advice here is to stabilize and remove all your debts now.  It is less exciting but safer.  But if you don't owe any money.  Go for it. Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)...  As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable,  this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time,  I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you. In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income. "I encourage you to think of this home purchase decision as a chance to buy into a community that you want your children to grow up in.  Try to find a place where you will be happy for the next 20 years, not just the next 2 or 7 years. In your situation, option 1 seems like a bad idea.  It will create an obstacle to having children, instead of establishing a place for them to grow up in. Option 2 is close to ""buying a house on a layaway plan"".  It offers the most financial flexibility.  It also could result in the best long-term outcome, because you will buy in an established area, and you will know exactly what quality house you will have.  But you and your fiancé need to ask yourselves some hard questions:  Are you willing to put up with the mess and hassles of remodelling?  Are you good at designing such projects?  Can you afford to pay for the projects as they occur?  Or if you need to finance them, can you get a HELOC to cover them? Especially if you and your fiancé do much of the work yourselves, break down the projects into small enough pieces that you can quickly finish off whatever you are working on at the time, and be happy living in the resulting space.  You do not want to be nagging your husband about an unfinished project ""forever"" -- or silently resenting that a project never got wrapped up.  I posted some suggestions for incrementally finishing a basement on the Home Improvement Stack Exchange. If you are up to the job of option 2, it is less risky than option 3.  Option 3 has several risks: You don't know what sort of people will live in the neighborhood 5 - 20 years from now.  Will the homes be owner-occupied?  Or rentals?  Will your neighbors care about raising children well?  Or will lots of kids grow up in broken homes?   Will the schools be good?  Disappointing?  Or dangerous?  Whereas in an established neighborhood, you can see what the neighborhood is currently like, and how it has been changing. Unless you custom-build (or remodel), you don't control the quality of the construction.  Some neighborhoods built by Pulte in the last 10 years were riddled with construction defects. You will be paying up-front for features you don't need yet.  You might never need some of them.  And some of them might interfere with what you realize later on might be better. In stable markets, new homes (especially ones with lots of ""upgrades"") often decline in value during the first few years.  This is because part of the value is in the ""newness"" and being ""up-to-date"" with the latest fads.  This part of the value wears off over time. Are the homes ""at the edge of town"" already within reasonable walking distance of parks, schools, church, grocery stores, et cetera?  Might the commute from the ""edge of town"" to work get worse over the next 5 - 20 years?" Buying a starter home is not a bad idea if you have a stable job and plan to stay in the area for a long time. Owning a house that you can afford is a very good idea.  Purchasing a home that you do not want to live in long term is not a good idea. People who move frequently pay a lot in real estate commissions, as you've mentioned, but they also pay loan origination and title fees. Mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and many people consider home ownership to better than renting because of that fact alone. What they do not consider are costs of property taxes, HOA fees (common in condos and townhouses, but also possible in single family homes), and being tied to piece of real estate if the job market changes and they need to move. The easy rule of thumb is to consider the ratio of total price to one year of rent. If you could purchase for $200k, but you would rent for $800 per month then the price to rent ratio is 20.83. Depending on the market most homes fall between 10 and 20. When the ratio is less than 10, then you would be at a great disadvantage renting instead of purchasing, when the ratio is greater than 20, you would be foolish to buy instead of rent unless there was some other compelling factor motivating the purchase. Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information. Here's my view, as a 38yr old NZer who grew up in Auckland: When you purchase a residential property, whether or not you intend to live in it, you're essentially counting on the possibility that one of the following will occur: This report by the NZ Royal Society (going by memory from a presentation I attended) predicts ongoing population growth in NZ, mainly driven by immigration, and mostly in Auckland. Building of new housing isn't keeping up with population growth, so my bet would be that the property values, especially in Auckland, are going to continue to climb.  Other factors that might influence your decision are things only you can know, such as where you might be likely to settle down, how much risk you're willing to take, how much capability you have to look after a rental property, and how much knowledge you have about the property market. Bear in mind that government schemes and world events may change the outlook for number of houses being built and immigration levels, both of which heavily affect property values. My personal view is that the government isn't doing nearly enough to provide affordable housing for our young adults in NZ. Not only that; the govt is essentially responsible for the problem in the first place, as zoning rules for local authorities artificially inflate land prices which prevent the building of affordable houses. Furthermore, foreign investment in rental properties is unregulated and unmeasured. Both these problems could be resolved with appropriate legislation, though central city prices are unlikely to be relieved as much as other areas simply because prices are also inflated due to the desirability to live centrally. The problem is a severe one, and high housing prices for even the smallest dwellings are going to make inequality, and the social problems that go with it, far worse. I'd like to see new cities or towns being planned and built from scratch, such as Pegasus and Canberra. "No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a ""cheap"" home to cost 20% or less of your income, ""affordable"" between 20-30% and ""not affordable"" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in  a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The ""cost"" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for." "Assuming you file state tax returns, you shouldn't buy Basic. Ever. Your choice is probably between the ""Premier"" version and the ""Business and Home"" version. Price difference is insignificant (I have a comparison on my blog, including short descriptions as to who might find each version useful the most). The prices have gone down significantly, since when I wrote the article, its cheaper now." Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment?  I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking.   Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood. "Here are some important things to think about.  Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work.  Where do you want to live?  Are there suitable jobs nearby?  How much do they pay? Emergency fund.  Banks care that you have ""reserves"" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck.  This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for?  If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder.  If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder.  If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices.  If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married?  Will you sell?  expand?  build another house on the same lot?  rent the home out? Total budget.  How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to?  Talk with a banker about how much you can afford.  Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget.  Consider a new mobile or manufactured home.  But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms.  Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment.  It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting.  Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are.  Ask about the ""front-end"" and ""back-end"" Debt-To-Income ratios.  In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans.  They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves.  They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction.  Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area.  (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.)  Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan.  In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit.  The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house.  If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans.  Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent.  How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute.  How much time will it take to get from your new home to work?  How much will it cost?  (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel?  If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability.  How many are there to choose from?  Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land?  Can you homestead government land?  How much does a lot cost?  Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid?  Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that?  (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage)  If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems?  (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights.  Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need.  Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need.  Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build?  (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.)  How can the home be used?  (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.)  What setbacks are required?  How tall can the building(s) be?  Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder.  For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion.  If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits.  The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete.  A good bank will back you up.  Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction.  Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less.  Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction.  Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance.  Avoid properties that need flood insurance.  Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic.  Strongly consider earthquake insurance.  Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs.  Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need.  Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump.  (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.)  You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of ""heating degree days"" and ""cooling degree days"" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills.  If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design.  Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander.  Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka.  This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect.  The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems.  Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too.  (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house.  For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, ""the builder's engineer"".  Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code." The simple answer is to get a residential mortgage first, and once you have secured the loan, do whatever you want.  The bank only cares about what risk they are taking on the day of closing and won't care afterwards so long as you pay the mortgage on time. Residential mortgages are going to give you better rates than rentals, generally. Uhuh. And if I go to the Sushi bar 10 minutes before they close, they'll give me their stale rolls 50% off. Will CNBC right on article on that tip from me?  Its just a stupid article. Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.