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.
Hah! Gotcha beat! Raised in family of 8; 1500-square-foot home (built in 1910), 1 bathroom for most of the time, then they added a half-bath. (3 bedrooms: 3 boys in one, 3 girls in another, and parents' room.)
OMG Lovebrentwood! Were you one of the "Brady Bunch" children? Your childhood home sounds so much like I remember on the TV show! Never understood why an architect would build a house where all 6 kids had to share a bathroom.
families didn't like sharing one bathroom like we did in the old days
families wanted each kid to have their own bedroom
all the electronic equipment like TVs, computers, Wii, games meant the family room was cramped with family members wanting to do separate things
with two incomes came the need for two cars and bigger garages.
some felt obligated to buy teens their own cars, so bigger driveways needed
and the BIGGEST reason for bigger homes???Multi generations living together, the need for in-law suites, separate apartments for college age kids.
After you have forked over almost $5,000 a month for assisted living costs, you realize having the old folks at home is more cost efficient for everybody as well as safer.
Correct. Then the recession hit, and things are changing, a bit.
And to respond to the other posters -- I don't think we are criticizing "McMansions," we're just mentioning how people did just fine in the past before everything in our lives was "super-sized." And if downsizing is in the future, everyone will survive just fine.
Personally, I love seeing people with money SPENDING money. (I know people with money who are SO cheap! What good is it if you don't spend it?) Spending is good for the entire economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
what happened is that
families didn't like sharing one bathroom like we did in the old days
families wanted each kid to have their own bedroom
all the electronic equipment like TVs, computers, Wii, games meant the family room was cramped with family members wanting to do separate things
with two incomes came the need for two cars and bigger garages.
some felt obligated to buy teens their own cars, so bigger driveways needed
and the BIGGEST reason for bigger homes???Multi generations living together, the need for in-law suites, separate apartments for college age kids.
After you have forked over almost $5,000 a month for assisted living costs, you realize having the old folks at home is more cost efficient for everybody as well as safer.
I have to disagree with this statement. McMansions specifically refer to houses that are large but of mediocre quality. Think of the 5000 sf house that's brick on the front but vinyl siding on the other three sides. Think of the huge house with cheap cabinetry and other entry level finishes.
Many large houses in Raleigh aren't McMansions in my opinion. There are plenty of super sized but super high quality homes in the area.
If thats the way the word is used, I'd agree with you 100%. You hit the definition head on. However, so many people are using it just to describe any home that is over a size they arbitrarily decide in their head.
I do think it is funny to go into a house on the Parade of Homes that costs 900k and has essentially the same doors and hardware that every tract builder puts in all their houses.
Correct. Then the recession hit, and things are changing, a bit.
And to respond to the other posters -- I don't think we are criticizing "McMansions," we're just mentioning how people did just fine in the past before everything in our lives was "super-sized." And if downsizing is in the future, everyone will survive just fine.
Personally, I love seeing people with money SPENDING money. (I know people with money who are SO cheap! What good is it if you don't spend it?) Spending is good for the entire economy.
Bingo! Plus, it's always fun to do the "I had to walk uphill to school in the snow - both ways!" one-upping.
I visited Hong Kong a few years ago, and one night I was walking around and saw huge groups of people just hanging out in public areas, playing cards, sleeping, talking, eating, playing handheld game devices, etc. They would sit anywhere on the ground. I asked my contacts who live in HK about it the next day, and they told me that because families live in such tiny apartments (2-3 ROOMS - not bedrooms - @400 sq.ft), they spend their recreational time outside their homes. Home is for bathing and sleeping, cooking and sometimes eating. It was quite interesting.
I don't think anyone said you can't raise a family of 8 in a 1500 sq ft house. Just, if you have the money for a 4000 sq ft house, why not upgrade.
...because you'd rather travel, save money for college educations, give to charities, support your elderly relatives, keep your carbon footprint smaller, etc...
just some ideas. no judgments. I think that this is an interesting shift because it says something about out society culturally.
We have lived in our house for 3 years and have never used the formal dining room. . . . . well, I take that back. . . we put our Xmas tree in there each year. What a waste of space. We didn't even bother to buy dining room furniture.
Know what you mean. I used to have a house with a formal LR, den and rec room, so we never used the LR. I resented going into it each week to vacuum and dust. that was the only time anyone went into the room.
I don't think there's anything wrong with building a 5000 SF dream house. If you've worked hard and can afford it, by all means, rock on and build what you want.
But the issue is more of everybody wanting just a little toomuch house and more than they could really afford. The stupid cheap mortgages and arms with no income, no ssn, no asset verification, no anything for $400,000-500,000 houes pretty much wrecked the housing market.
Everybody upgraded everything and just spent, spent, spent. Hey...my $450,000 house will be worth $550,000 next year, so who cars? And just do it. I really need a 2500 SF house, but I might as well get 4000 SF. That was the mentality.
I think people that are fairly secure are even giving 2nd thoughts to higher end homes. People's 401k's and retirements are at stake. Why take the risk. Live a little bit below your means and save money for a rainy day
You can't count on your $600,000 home going up in value and being worth $800,000 in 5 years.
People were using their house like a cash register - and those days are gone.
Hah! Gotcha beat! Raised in family of 8; 1500-square-foot home (built in 1910), 1 bathroom for most of the time, then they added a half-bath. (3 bedrooms: 3 boys in one, 3 girls in another, and parents' room.) No garage. FT mom at home. Private elementary school. We were an active, happy family. No one ever told us we were missing anything.
I don't know HOW we did it, but we also survived without granite countertops or stainless steel appliances!!! Imagine!
You decadent Americans We Brits housed more people, in half the space for twice the money Oh, and no a/c or central heat. It was fireplaces in each room for us. As the eldest, I got the privilege of lighting the coal fire on frosty morns
The Brit house design has one advantage, with a one bathroom house, the bathroom was usually separate from the WC (toilet), in 2 rooms side by side. That cuts down on sibs fighting for the bathroom.
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.
