House lots shrinking in the Twin Cities (St. Paul, Blaine: how much, cheap house)

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

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.

Well, don't go taking out a loan you can't afford to repay as millions of people did in the last decade. Many of them are now asking for help because they overbought. They had their own opinions of what they'd prefer, but their ability to pay was more on the level of the cookie-cutter house.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Well, don't go taking out a loan you can't afford to repay as millions of people did in the last decade. Many of them are now asking for help because they overbought. They had their own opinions of what they'd prefer, but their ability to pay was more on the level of the cookie-cutter house.

Cost and 'cookie-cutter-ness' are two different things though. McMansions can be pretty cookie cutter, and small, cheap condos/apartments can have some of the most unique character. Two entirely different variables.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

Cost and 'cookie-cutter-ness' are two different things though. McMansions can be pretty cookie cutter, and small, cheap condos/apartments can have some of the most unique character. Two entirely different variables.

Exactly. I'm not going out on a limb to say that the big reason 'cookie-cutter' developments sprang up is that they are cheaper per size than unique, hand-built individual places. In the neighborhoods that get cited on here as being "unique" and "full of character" (SW Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, by the state fair grounds, Macalaster-Groveland in St. Paul) $200,000 will buy you 1,800sf and 3 bedroom. Move out into some of the cookie-cutter style suburb neighborhoods and that same $200,000 will buy you 2,400 sf and 4-5 bedrooms.

I will say, though, that it seems like newer developments are shying away from the perfect cookie-cutters, though. Even small changes like more variation in color, changing the orientation of houses relative to the street, and swapping what side the garage is on can do a lot to break up the monotony of a neighborhood.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

Cost and 'cookie-cutter-ness' are two different things though. McMansions can be pretty cookie cutter, and small, cheap condos/apartments can have some of the most unique character. Two entirely different variables.

I've seen some really nice old fashioned apartments. Not sure what their cost was. Some buildings like warehouses have been rebuilt as lofts and such. Just a matter of shopping for whatever you like. My comments are more about new construction. Frankly, construction companies don't really make stuff to last. My wife and I looked at dozens of houses, and some of the newest were some of the shabbiest. We ended up in a place built in the 30's. But we saw houses much older that had even more character.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by moving123456

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...

The crowded suburban neighborhood example is not attractive to me either, but it isn't because of the small lots and tight spaces. It is because of the over-emphasis on the driveway and garage and the lack of urban appeal. Dumping monotonous-looking "Mcmansions" on top of each other really does take the worst of both worlds IMO. On the other hand, row houses in an urban environment close to urban amenities is very attractive to me, and presents an even tighter use of space:







(Courtesy of Basic Information Your Should to Know about Row Houses | Modern Home Gallery)

[Beenhere4ever]

People gotta realize that big lots in urban centers are a postwar phenomenon, in the subsections that got annexed to the urban core. People alive today probably assume somehow that's "standard". I'd even say it has become fixed as an esthetic standard for a lot of people. But its a fashion of a certain time. The famous people of the past didn't live that way. When you do a lot of walking, big lots mean your walking distance is more. Even on the west coast, in San Francisco, they mimicked the eastern cities. I remember the first time I saw the Mission District, with NO room between houses, I thought it was really quaint.

[StanleyVegas]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

I've seen some really nice old fashioned apartments. Not sure what their cost was. Some buildings like warehouses have been rebuilt as lofts and such. Just a matter of shopping for whatever you like. My comments are more about new construction. Frankly, construction companies don't really make stuff to last. My wife and I looked at dozens of houses, and some of the newest were some of the shabbiest. We ended up in a place built in the 30's. But we saw houses much older that had even more character.

The trend has been an emphasis on the most sq. footage for the lowest construction cost. Some houses built 20 years ago are already falling apart. The bungalow movement in the early 20th century was cost driven as well, but seems like it emphasized function, simplicity and quality over size. Most are still around, unless they were really neglected. Our '29 bungalow (975 s/f) is considered a starter home, but the wife of the man who built it lived in it for 60 years.

[Beenhere4ever]

Just a theory, but home construction companies may look at the turnover in houses and think the initial buyer only will live there for maybe 5 years, so the real problem happens with the third or fourth owner which may be when shabby construction starts to show. And by that time, the contractor might even be out of business. I think you go back enough generations, you reach a time when some work was done with pride. The carpenter's self-image demanded a good job. Now everyone thinks ripping other people off makes them "clever".

So that's why I think many intelligent buyers try to use insight to see the pride in old construction.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Just a theory, but home construction companies may look at the turnover in houses and think the initial buyer only will live there for maybe 5 years, so the real problem happens with the third or fourth owner which may be when shabby construction starts to show. And by that time, the contractor might even be out of business. I think you go back enough generations, you reach a time when some work was done with pride. The carpenter's self-image demanded a good job. Now everyone thinks ripping other people off makes them "clever".

So that's why I think many intelligent buyers try to use insight to see the pride in old construction.

There are a lot of 20 year old houses around us and none of them are falling apart . We had more issues with our 1920's Craftsman house than our 1995 "new' house....

[ManBearPig1]

It's more the building materials developers use today to make the economics of developments work for the project than any pride or lack thereof by builders. Look at all the new construction around the metro. It's ALL stick construction. In bygone times even smaller developments than some of the current buildings getting stick construction would have been stone/brick built. Stick construction ages much worse than stone/brick construction.