What would you do if you had alot of money? Would you a buy a condo in California and a summer house in the east coast or a condo in new York and a summer house in the west coast?

37 comments

1. I would just buy a house on the west coast. Why would I need anything on the east coast?

   If I was forced to own 2 properties, then I’d have them in San Diego and Seattle.

2. I’d live exactly where I do now. I’d pay off my entire mortgage first. Then, if I had enough money to do so, retire immediately. I’d live pretty much the same lifestyle I have now, just not have to have a job to do so.

3. I would buy no property in either of those states personally. But if I had to choose, California’s weather sounds better for most of the year and I like a good beach so condo there.

4. Why would I need to be bi-coastal?

   I would do neither option you describe. I’d keep a cottage on a lake for the summer up north. Beach shack somewhere south for the winter. Rest of my money would be for travel.

   In fact, probably go without any sort of house for a while if I was properly rich.

5. I simply wouldn’t own two properties.

6. If I won the lottery I’d spend half the year in San Diego where I used to live and the other half near Philadelphia where I live now.

7. I’d have a house in the Chicago area, then probably a nice place in the Rockies somewhere.

8. The latter. I’d have a house on the west coast and a nice broom closet in NYC with a parking spot.

   But given complete freedom I’d chose neither. I’d get a house in semi rural New England and condo somewhere in west near a lake.

9. Neither. Have a mountain home somewhere in the Rockies.

10. I’d leave the east coast immediately, buy my winter house in San Diego and my summer house on the Oregon coast.

11. Buy house in the Monterey California area and a condo in Hawaii.

12. Neither. 1 good house and 1 good RV

13. In any situation where I have the money to have two homes, I cannot see myself getting a condo. I also don’t see myself being bi-coastal because that just makes it more aggravating to transport things between the two homes. I’d much rather stick to one coast.

14. I would buy a ranch in New Mexico.

15. I’d keep my little house in Indiana, but I wouldn’t mind having a place in Flagstaff Arizona. In the winter you can do all kind of winter hobbies like snowmobiling and 60 to 70°F degree weather in Phoenix is only 2 hours away. In the summer you’re close to many national parks (closest is Grand Canyon at 1.5 hours)

16. I’d live on the West coast with a quiet home on warm lake & a condo in a city

17. Northern CA (north of SF) coast cottage with ocean view. Perfect hermitage.

    Condo in high rise in Manhattan, NYC.

    That’s how I’d do it.

18. You remember that scene in The Matrix when there is just rows and rows of guns on racks?

19. Look for a place that will be minimally impacted by climate change. Build a nice homestead with some sustainable gardening and solar. Why people are moving to places that insurance companies won’t cover becaue of flood and storm surge danger is beyond me.

20. Neither. I’d prefer to live on the Fresh Coast or in the mountains. I also would definitely not want a condo. I’d rather just have a house.

21. Neither. I’d get a lake house in Maine for the summer/fall and stay where I am in Philly for the rest of the time.

22. Neither. Call me crazy, but I don’t actually hate living in a “flyover state.” And “a lot of money” by CA/NY standards would be “a fuckton of money” by Ohio standards.

    If I could, I’d buy a cabin out in the woods somewhere as a vacation house more than a summer house.

23. I’d pay off my current home and retire.

24. I already live in CT, so I would just buy a nicer house here.

25. Assuming the context is “where would you own properties if you had the money to be bi-coastal” I’d do a house in Austin 9 months of the year (California central coast would be fun, but unless this money also includes a private jet then it can’t buy me being that remote from my family for good) and a summer cabin somewhere in the Rockies. A place in NYC would be fun for a couple weeks a year, but if I had that kind of money I could just get a fancy hotel stay any time I wanted.

26. Depends on your definition of “a lot of money”, but if it’s anything over $20MM I would move to the Bahamas under someone else’s name and disappear.

    If it’s something like $5-10MM I’d keep the house I currently own, put money into an index fund, and wait till I have the amount of money needed to move to an island nation under somebody else’s name, and disappear.

27. Oh neither. Up north and flyover country is where I’d prefer to live. There are a few (very few) coastal areas I’d be OK living in, but they are all in the northern most coastal areas. (Washington / Maine) But really… mountains, great lakes, forest, desert… all very beautiful.

28. Two chicks at the same time

29. I’d buy a house right near Nubble Lighthouse in York Maine. I don’t need anything else in my life.

30. California and New York are not places I would want to live.

    Summer home in Washington State, maybe up in like Skagit or Whatcom county, and winter home in Phoenix or Tucson, Arizona.

31. Neither. I’d have my house in my current state, a lake house within a 4 hour drive, then a house in the Scottish Highlands.

32. I would buy a house iny Downeast Maine and if I had a lot left over, I’d work less and take my wife on some fun trips.

33. Hell no. Most taxed places in America are you crazy?

34. No and no.

35. I’d do neither. I’d live near my family and travel a lot.

36. Neither place, and certainly not in a condo.

    You’d have to define “a lot of money” so I could tell what I’d really do.

37. I would not choose either at all. I would stay in the Midwest and occasionally vacation somewhere warm.