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.
This is kind of interesting because of all the respondents that said they wanted a smaller home, none have actually lived in one. When my first wife and I got married, she was 19 and I was 20 and we needed a home, so I staked out a spot and started building a house...a modest 480 square foot home. In less than two years we added on because it was just too small. There is all kinds of reasons to live in a smaller home I know, but until you actually live in one, you don't realize there is just a need for more space.
My husband and me, and our son lived in a 500 square foot apartment for 5 years, nearly 6. While we could have done with an extra half bath for the occasional times when more than one person needed a potty at the same time, we were quite comfortable, though we had to limit the number of visitors at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokenTap
So then the house got up to 900 square feet. That was not too bad...about right size wise for a wife and husband and a couple of dogs...until the baby came along. Then again, it was just too small. A baby takes up a lot of space! So then it was another addition that brought the house up to 2100 square feet. I admit the last addition was bigger then it needed to be, but all in all I like the overall design and wouldn't change anything about it.
This is the size house I grew up in, and it seemed very roomy. 900 square feet, with a smallish living room, an eat-in kitchen, single bathroom, and 3 smallish bedrooms. At the time it was quite comfortable. We were a family of 5, with my mom and dad and 3 girls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by younglisa7
Overall I think most Americans are very wasteful and care too much about what others think of them. I've seen people who have these huge houses just to impress and then they can't afford to furnish all of the rooms. There is really something wrong with that.
If you can afford it and you want it then go for it. Personally I like smaller homes and I hate stuff. I like living a simple life. I am not into the whole green fad. I am off grid though with all solar power which I think is really cool.
As far as house sizes I like the smaller, not tiny, ones also with lots of storage and built ins. I wouldn't want to go smaller than about 12x40. I think that is just enough for 2 people. Most of the rooms in people's houses are never used and that is the true waste. My in laws have a 5 bedroom house and the maintenance alone is killer. They are both almost 80 and the costs are incredible. I don't understand why people would choose that.
I think you're right about the waste aspect, I've seen it quite a bit. Same with the 'gotta impress the neighbors, family, and friends with how much we've got!' attitude. Sure if you have the money and have a lot of family or entertain a lot, more power to you. But I do think that for those who can afford a lot of space and luxury that they shouldn't just be wasteful because they can afford it. Trying to be more eco-conscious and reducing your personal carbon footprint is just a sound and responsible thing to do.
Use greener building methods and materials, insulate heavily, use LED and other low energy use lighting, and think about things like green switches or solar panels. Anyone who can afford a 6000 square foot home can afford these things and it will help improve your quality of life, not to mention the quality of everyone's environment.
I'm sorry to hear that. I never have to flush mine twice but I do make sure to hold the lever down and then it is the fastest toilet I have ever seen, lol. Maybe you use too much TP. Just a thought.
I thought that too at first, but no. My rental had the worst toilets in the world and even if I flushed with no TP, it still backed up pretty frequently, over 50% of the time.
Some of the newer low flows seem to be "air assisted" in some way; this toilet was not. My new house, 52 years old, has 2 bathrooms. One has the original 3 gallon toilet, the other has a new 1.6 gallon low flow that is unlike the other low flows I have seen. So far that particular low flow has never backed up because it seems to have some kind of air assistance.
I am still not going to replace my old toilet though, why should I? It works fine.
I replaced the toilets in my 1940's house with a toilet from Niagara Conservation a few years ago. It is low flow and hasn't jammed up once (and my family has a thing with clogging toilets ). It is also works on a gravity system so no floats and flappers to deal with or leak. My water dept. reimbursed the cost of the toilet, didn't cost me anything and it is much better than the old one.
To me the above two statements seem a contradiction? Even if everyone moved into a small homes if we all want to be surrounded by acres of land, urban sprawl will be as bad or worse as it is currently. Unless you are planning to farm the land I don't see it as an efficient use of space or green
But which is more environmentally friendly?
Two acres with 4 1000 sq ft homes on, or two acres with 1 1000 sq ft home on? It has to be the latter surely?
Unless you are planning to farm the land I don't see it as an efficient use of space or green
Let me ask you this; do you have objections to individuals who simply do not want to live "on top" of another home? Who want, what we call it here, "elbow room"?
Or, are you a proponent of housing being predominantly High Density in nature?
To me the above two statements seem a contradiction? Even if everyone moved into a small homes if we all want to be surrounded by acres of land, urban sprawl will be as bad or worse as it is currently. Unless you are planning to farm the land I don't see it as an efficient use of space or green
But which is more environmentally friendly?
Two acres with 4 1000 sq ft homes on, or two acres with 1 1000 sq ft home on? It has to be the latter surely?
Sorry I hate being close to people. I live on 38.5 acres but we have cattle on it. They make good neighbors if not a little mischievous every once in a while, lol.
We have a very low population in my area so lots of people have lot land.
Want to talk about inefficient use of land, what about cemeteries?
To me the above two statements seem a contradiction? Even if everyone moved into a small homes if we all want to be surrounded by acres of land, urban sprawl will be as bad or worse as it is currently. Unless you are planning to farm the land I don't see it as an efficient use of space or green
But which is more environmentally friendly?
Two acres with 4 1000 sq ft homes on, or two acres with 1 1000 sq ft home on? It has to be the latter surely?
The part in bold itallics was someone elses comment not mine as you'll see if you go back over the posts
My comment was about low density being environmentally friendly!
I replaced the toilets in my 1940's house with a toilet from Niagara Conservation a few years ago. It is low flow and hasn't jammed up once (and my family has a thing with clogging toilets ). It is also works on a gravity system so no floats and flappers to deal with or leak. My water dept. reimbursed the cost of the toilet, didn't cost me anything and it is much better than the old one.
I doubt the water company here would have a pink toilet in stock to replace my 52 year old 3 gallon flush pink toilet. It's good that your low flow works well though, they have acquired a bad reputation for constantly clogging and jamming and wasting water.
But which is more environmentally friendly?
Two acres with 4 1000 sq ft homes on, or two acres with 1 1000 sq ft home on? It has to be the latter surely?
Depends on the lifestyle of the home dwellers, and of course location location location.
A two career couple, with three children (all involved in afterschool activities) living on their two acres 20 miles from the nearest city? That's going to be a huge drain on resources (mostly all that driving back and forth, back and forth).
If that same family lived on 1/2 an acre (or less) with a veggie garden and a xeriscaped lot within the city limits, within walking/biking distance of work, schools and shopping.....well you get the point.
Depends on the lifestyle of the home dwellers, and of course location location location.
A two career couple, with three children (all involved in afterschool activities) living on their two acres 20 miles from the nearest city? That's going to be a huge drain on resources (mostly all that driving back and forth, back and forth).
If that same family lived on 1/2 an acre (or less) with a veggie garden and a xeriscaped lot within the city limits, within walking/biking distance of work, schools and shopping.....well you get the point.
My point was that (forget the size of the lot) higher density housing isn't a s green because for every house built resources are used to
1. manufacture and ship the materials for building
2. for heating and cooling
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.
). It is also works on a gravity system so no floats and flappers to deal with or leak. My water dept. reimbursed the cost of the toilet, didn't cost me anything and it is much better than the old one.
It's good that your low flow works well though, they have acquired a bad reputation for constantly clogging and jamming and wasting water.
