With my recent search for a home to purchase, I have come to a realization of something new. I'd like to share it with you and get your feedback.
For the sake of environment and quality of life, I wanted to live in a walkable neighbourhood. I wanted to live in a home that was close to various things: a bank, a library, grocery stores, a book store, parks, a waterfront, etc. I had found two homes and I settled on the one that is actually is in a better neighbourhood. (The other one was a riverfront property, but the home was bigger than I needed it to be, pricier, and was in a not so good neighbourhood.) Anyways, I have searched for a mid-century home for a long time as I really like the look of these homes especially for their unique architecture, their orientation to nature, their tendency to have rooms that are just big enough and not too large, and their large expanse of windows.
In my search for a mid century home, I noticed a few things:
1. They tend to be further away from commercial cores. It is as if they were once the edge of the city and thus has the legacy of being developed in a subdivision model. Thus, they're not in so walkable areas.
2. They may be found in some in-fill areas and therefore the immediate neighbourhood isn't as great.
3. They tend to be out in the countryside, which definitely requires homeowners to drive to get anything!
So, I am left with wondering about this question: if I were to ever live in a mid-century modern home, then I would have to give up one of the two things:
1. good neighbourhoods (which is good for resale) for not so great neighbourhoods
2. walkable neighbourhoods for not so walkable neighbourhoods.
Are my findings similar to what you have observed about areas that have mid century homes in your hometown?