Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what I did. I know it is more then what I need, for now. But I am 29, and have one kid with plans of more coming. I also live out of state form ALL family so we have frequent visitors throughout the year, I'd say 2 months a year we have a relative in the house.
My plans are, you can't trust the market, I am not buying a house as an investment, I am buying it as a place to live. On top of that, for it to be reasonable, I would need to live there for 10 years or more.
One thing I have seen people my age, that bought 5-6 years ago. They lived "sensible" and bought what they needed, not what they planned for. Some of them are living in 1200 sq ft. houses, and 2 bedroom townhome/condos. They now are working on a 2nd or even 3rd kid in one case. They only have 2 bedrooms. There is no yard for the kid to play in, place is small to even be able to have a pet. One guy was lucky and had a loft that he just did a home renovation to turn it into a bedroom.
They have growing families, and are in great financial situation to more then double the size of their house... if they could walk away form their current place with only losing a few thousand, but in some cases its $50k so they are stuck.
Alot of them are really upset about this.
Life is about balance, you have to balance a certain degree of "life enjoyment" with frugalness.
I COMPLETELY agree with you 100%. I always find it better to have more than you need instead of not enough. It's much easier to clean and maintain "extra" space but much more difficult to add additional space.
I like space but I don't want extra rooms that I don't use (except for guest bed/bath). IDEALLY I'd like a house around 4000 sq ft but only 3 bed/3 bath. I like having LARGE rooms not necessarily "many" rooms. My retired parents have a place around 5000 sq ft and it's only 4 bed/4 bath but all the rooms are very spacious, I HATE feeling closed in.
I just can't see where a house with 1000 sq ft would be popular except for maybe singles, even having one other person would make it feel quite cramped in my eyes.
I fail to see why it would be "smart" for anyone except those who need all that space. In my case, I would simply be heating and maintaining 90% of the home that I wouldn't ever use.
Energy efficiency on the modern McMansion can actually be surprisingly good because of improved building codes over the years. My BIL's family went from a 1300sf home built in the 1910s to a 2600sf home built in the 90s and managed to cut their utility bill in half even as they doubled their living space.
I COMPLETELY agree with you 100%. I always find it better to have more than you need instead of not enough. It's much easier to clean and maintain "extra" space but much more difficult to add additional space.
I like space but I don't want extra rooms that I don't use (except for guest bed/bath). IDEALLY I'd like a house around 4000 sq ft but only 3 bed/3 bath. I like having LARGE rooms not necessarily "many" rooms. My retired parents have a place around 5000 sq ft and it's only 4 bed/4 bath but all the rooms are very spacious, I HATE feeling closed in.
I just can't see where a house with 1000 sq ft would be popular except for maybe singles, even having one other person would make it feel quite cramped in my eyes.
I agree that it's better to have more than you need instead of not enough. By the same token, I think it's best to have exactly what you need. Less to maintain, less to heat and cool, etc. And if you are buying a home to spend your life within, resale value is really not much of a consideration. Personally, I wouldn't live in a home of 4000 sq ft if someone paid me to do it. But that's just me. We are all different.
I grew up in several homes (we moved a few times). I wasn't really into measuring square footage as a child, but I know for a fact they were all less than 1000 sq ft. At that time, 1000 sq ft was quite large. Look at the homes that were built prior to the 1960's. Their average size was around there somewhere. And that was considered typical at the time (and families were larger at that time too). Nobody really thought about it much. It was the norm. A home of the typical size of today was generally either a mansion or a home for a very, very large family. Look at the Victorian mansions of years past. Even they weren't all that big in many cases. Our families have shrunk and our homes have grown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmouse
Energy efficiency on the modern McMansion can actually be surprisingly good because of improved building codes over the years. My BIL's family went from a 1300sf home built in the 1910s to a 2600sf home built in the 90s and managed to cut their utility bill in half even as they doubled their living space.
And how efficient would an 800 sq ft home built to today's energy efficiency standards be? You can't really make the argument that an old small home is less efficient than a modern large home. The old home was not built to the new home's standards. If it were, it would be vastly less costly and more energy efficient than the old one or the new larger home.
Look, I'm not arguing that everyone should be in a 300 sq ft cabin. BUT, I am arguing that we all should have the right to do so if that is what works for us. I'm arguing against restrictive regulations and laws against small homes. The argument that a small home (built to today's standards) is dangerous or somehow structurally unsound is absolute stupidity. Homes of any size can be built safely. And homes of any size can be built shoddily. All I'm arguing for is that none of us should be forced into more house than we need or want. Most cities in my area set a minimum on dwellings at 1200 sq ft. That's ludicrous. And that's one reason I'm moving away. I've never lived in a home that large and I never will. The size of my home plan(s) (I've designed/engineered/drafted 12 or so small homes) hover around 250 up to 420 sq ft. I really have no interest in more than that. I know there are others who feel the same. So please don't assume that I'm attacking your large homes. I may think they are silly (and may even say so), but I am in no way crusading against large homes. I am crusading for choice.
Ranging from as little as 100sq feet, up to the behemoth 172sq ft 'Popomo', a lifestyle change for Americans is just a few pages of plans and some lumber away.
Lower power bills, less maintenance (replacing an 8x16ft roof doesn't cost that much), and overhead.
The wave of the future is here. And since banks do not finance these things, they could basically end the "foreclosure crisis" in a couple of years. No more complaining about a 30 year mortgage, adjustable rates, etc. These things are bought the old fashioned way. With cash, and some sweat and labor.
Tumbleweed Houses.
But the irony is, this country is so broke - Less than 80% of working Americans couldn't even afford to buy one them right now even if they wanted to!! Ha, ha.
A tumbleweed home could make home ownership for a single lady like me who doesn't make much money, actually possible.
If you really want a very small living space, why not look into a condo then? Of course you should have a choice but I can understand the rationale for a city to maintain a minimum requirement for a house size. A 250 sq ft home would look very out-of-place in most neighborhoods- almost as out of place as a 6000 sq ft McMansion would.
As you mentioned, many older homes can be around 1000 sq ft which I find small but would work for a single person. Why would you WANT a 250 sq ft home? I mean basically you're living in a space the size of my master bathroom. With a home that small, it'd be more like a studio apt than it would be a true "house".
There are a few communities in Scottsdale that REQUIRE you to build a home in EXCESS of 4000 sq ft in order to purchase a lot- that's mind-boggling to me.
If you're ever going to sell, the market is extremely limited for a place that small. Even though the recent trend is to downsize, I think you'd agree that's a little extreme.
We are two people living in a 980 sq. ft. house, works for us. My best friend lives in a 5000 sq. ft. house. It takes days to clean a huge house. Not worth it to me.
We are two people living in a 980 sq. ft. house, works for us. My best friend lives in a 5000 sq. ft. house. It takes days to clean a huge house. Not worth it to me.
I don't even know why you would bother with the cleaning... might as well outsource it.
Ranging from as little as 100sq feet, up to the behemoth 172sq ft 'Popomo', a lifestyle change for Americans is just a few pages of plans and some lumber away.
Lower power bills, less maintenance (replacing an 8x16ft roof doesn't cost that much), and overhead.
The wave of the future is here. And since banks do not finance these things, they could basically end the "foreclosure crisis" in a couple of years. No more complaining about a 30 year mortgage, adjustable rates, etc. These things are bought the old fashioned way. With cash, and some sweat and labor.
Tumbleweed Houses.
But the irony is, this country is so broke - Less than 80% of working Americans couldn't even afford to buy one them right now even if they wanted to!! Ha, ha.
It's not very sustainable. My husband and I have a huge garden and put up quarts of food every fall. There is no place to store it. When we build out "little cabin in the woods" the biggest room in the house is going to be the kitchen at 17x20.
I don't even know why you would bother with the cleaning... might as well outsource it.
I think most folks who have massive homes hire someone to clean it. Hell my house is 3100 sq ft and I don't even clean it myself- WAY too much work! Even when I was a poor college student, I hired someone to clean my townhome! Cleaning/vacuuming/dusting/mopping/etc is one of the VERY few things that I simply don't have the patience to do. I'd rather pay someone $30 an hour than do it myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
