House lots shrinking in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul: apartments, lofts)
Minneapolis - St. PaulTwin Cities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Hopefully the lots don't get as small as some developments I have seen in Canada around Toronto and Calgary.
I don't know if they have laws requiring tiny lots or the developers are just really greedy.
Many newer developments look like this...
I'm on the other side of the argument: why can't the Twin Cities build as sustainably as Canada and the Western U.S. in its suburbs? It doesn't have to look like THAT, but it's not too far off either. Do most of you suburbanites truly think that the city of Minneapolis and its neighborhoods are ghastly ugly and undesirable? I'd say most people find those neighborhoods charming, and a great mix between density and privacy. I think there should be MUCH more suburban homes that are under 2K SF and on lots smaller than 1/8 acre. I'd actually consider suburban living if I could find a neighborhood like Kenny or Armitage in the suburbs!
I'm on the other side of the argument: why can't the Twin Cities build as sustainably as Canada and the Western U.S. in its suburbs? It doesn't have to look like THAT, but it's not too far off either. Do most of you suburbanites truly think that the city of Minneapolis and its neighborhoods are ghastly ugly and undesirable? I'd say most people find those neighborhoods charming, and a great mix between density and privacy. I think there should be MUCH more suburban homes that are under 2K SF and on lots smaller than 1/8 acre. I'd actually consider suburban living if I could find a neighborhood like Kenny or Armitage in the suburbs!
Who wants to live in a tiny house like that though. Not that you need 4000 sq feet but we've had homes under 2000 sq feet and for our family they just aren't big enough especially when you add in friends spending the night with the kids, family and friends visiting from out of the area, etc. Our first home had 990 sq feet on the main floor and a sort of finished basement. That was great for the 2 of us and ok when our first child came along. When our next 2 showed up there is no way we would have fit in that house. Then the kids got bigger, their stuff got bigger (beds, dressers, toys) and you just need more space if you have more than one child. Sure, people do that, but that doesn't mean they like it.
Who wants to live in a tiny house like that though. Not that you need 4000 sq feet but we've had homes under 2000 sq feet and for our family they just aren't big enough especially when you add in friends spending the night with the kids, family and friends visiting from out of the area, etc. Our first home had 990 sq feet on the main floor and a sort of finished basement. That was great for the 2 of us and ok when our first child came along. When our next 2 showed up there is no way we would have fit in that house. Then the kids got bigger, their stuff got bigger (beds, dressers, toys) and you just need more space if you have more than one child. Sure, people do that, but that doesn't mean they like it.
I do, because it's AFFORDABLE and not everyone wants to rent indefinitely. In my entire life I've only ONCE lived in a home more than 2000 SF. It's "home" to me if it's manageable.
Count me as someone else who has never lived anywhere with more than 2,000 square feet. Obviously some people prefer more space (and like having multiple living spaces, kids have their own rooms, etc.), but it's definitely not necessary, and some people don't prefer it. We have 750 square feet right now, and thanks to layout it works out great. We could easily fit another kid in here. I'd probably consider the ideal size to be a bit bigger -- closer to the 1,000 square foot mark if we had 2-3 kids, but my preferences have definitely moved towards the smaller, not larger. I don't like the duplication of space in bigger places. But to each his or her own. Although as Beenhere4ever notes, there are definite environmental advantages to smaller homes (and to higher-density living).
My family was the parents and 10 kids. I doubt we ever had 2000 feet. Nowadays, couple has one kid, they are suddenly "too cramped". So subjective. Had a talk with neighbors who said they'd discussed moving many times because of two kids. I've been in their house. I find it rather large inside. Not sure where they get their notion of enough space.
It is not just that they are "cookie cutter" developments, we know those exist all over. When I brought up the subject, I was pointing out the huge house sizes on the really tiny lots. I have not seen houses that big on lots that small with the homes that close together anywhere in the Twin Cities area or in NC when I lived there. Can you find a picture of a development in the Twin Cities metro area with houses as close together as the picture that I posted above? The picture above was a Toronto suburb, but I just drove through Calgary twice last week and saw some very similar development.
Maybe new developments put the homes closer together in PHX or DFW? I have just noticed it most in Canada.
I would equate Toronto to New York or any other large US city in terms of lot size, especially close to the urban center. Toronto is a very large and old city, and very densely populated. There is not the space there that there is here. Look at how they are crammed in in NY and surrounding burroughs. Go further out to the suburbs or smaller cities and there is far more land. Toronto is the financial center of Canada, therefore a high degree of housing demand close to DT TO. Just like you go further out here, the lot sizes get bigger. I do agree the Twin Cities is more generous than other regions with lot size. Comparing major financial, economic and Oil centers to MSP is not a fair comparison.
Calgary has undergone explosive growth over the last two decades. MASSIVE growth. At one time, nearly a decade ago, many of the Toronto head offices for oil and gas moved to Calgary b/c the economy there is so much better. AS a result, Calgary had an influx of thousands of people. The land is much more valuable there too with the proximity to the mountains and the mountain views. I wouldn't live in one of those CC areas personally, but there are many to choose from that are not like that.
What were the development names in Calgary? Like I said earlier, sure, there are cookie cutter neighbourhoods in the outer regions of the city to accommodate the explosive growth. They exist almost everywhere. That doesn't mean the entire city of Calgary is like that... it isn't. If you are downtown, take a sidetrip up Elbow drive through South Calgary and up to Mount Royal. Continue up 14th street through Altadore past Central Memorial to Crowchild, head north to Lakeview and Lakeview Village. Braeside, Woodlands, Bonaventure, Bonavista, Oakridge, Woodbine, Wildwood, Dalhousie, Brentwood, Midnapore, Parkland, etc... all mature areas, not cookie cutter.
We lived in AZ during the housing boom. Homes were going up faster than you could sneeze. Many I wouldn't buy b/c they are so close together. Tucson is similar, everywhere I have lived have had neighbourhoods like that. They are not a new thing.
Seriously, when you consider the likely MILLIONS of people without a home, this "cookie cutter" thing comes to seem trivial. I am pretty convinced that GIs who got cookie cutter houses in the wake of WWII with GI loans were pretty happy to have them. Now the whole culture has gotten really spoiled. Maybe we do need another Great Depression to wipe these notions from the heads of Americans again. The ad industry's brainwashing has warped the minds of Americans so much that enough is never enough.
Seriously, when you consider the likely MILLIONS of people without a home, this "cookie cutter" thing comes to seem trivial. I am pretty convinced that GIs who got cookie cutter houses in the wake of WWII with GI loans were pretty happy to have them. Now the whole culture has gotten really spoiled. Maybe we do need another Great Depression to wipe these notions from the heads of Americans again. The ad industry's brainwashing has warped the minds of Americans so much that enough is never enough.
Meh, compared to the millions of people without a home, ANY decision about the size, shape, or accouterments of a home seem trite. And yet, people buy homes and have to make decisions and therefore have opinions. I couldn't care less whether someone else wants to live in a cookie-cutter neighborhood or not, and yet, I can still have an opinion about what I'd prefer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
