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's one of the reasons many of us live in the places we live.
...you cant really consume more conspicuously than paying top dollar for everything you purchase.
In fact, you seem to think being an urban living condo dweller somehow makes you better than other people.
Not everyone wants to live crammed into a few square miles with millions of other people.....many of whom are rude, obnoxious and stressed out by the very place they live.
You are actually the only person in this thread who seems to be showing off with regard to where they live. That is the irony of the entire thread and clearly the purpose. You're not really interested in why others choose something different than you; you're more about validating your choice by disparaging others choices.
But saying something is "just a preference" doesn't really explain anything. In fact, "it's just a preference" is a phrase people usually use to avoid explaining.
That's right because nobody should have to justify their choice regarding living space. I bought a big house because it's what I wanted. No explanation necessary.
I like cats. They are great companions and friends. I wish I could have two cats with me now.
But I live in a one bedroom apartment. I don't know the square footage and I don't feel like measuring it right now, but I'm sure it's not very much. It is too small for two cats to live in. I won't have just one because I work and between work and sleep it would spend a lot of time alone and that would be cruel. I have to have two so they can keep each other company.
So I don't have any and I am deprived and the cats are also deprived, since I would likely be saving them from a shelter.
But this is all I can afford.
I'm a country boy. I grew up in a rural farm town. We had 18 acres, mostly wooded and a small farm. We lived in a large house, but the first floor was all farm business. The upstairs was living space and between six children over the course of time and my parents the space was very small. But we did have those awesome woods in back to escape to. That was heaven.
My dream is to somehow, someday have enough money to be able to buy a few acres out somewhere quiet with a nice house, a garden, a lot of trees and a big fence. It'll be me and some cats and a dog. We'll be happy.
Not to offend anyone, but I think its absurd to need "dedicated space" because you somehow feel that a desk in the corner of a room is not quite good enough for your office. Are you running an empire from this home office? Are you Oprah? Martha Stewart? Probably not.
I do think if you have hobbies which require a lot of space, that is a decent reason to need more of it. Kids? Yes. Another decent reason. Because you are too spoiled to eat in the kitchen (heaven forbid!)? Come on now.
Preferring to sit with your husband at a properly set table is not being "spoiled". Studies have proved it is actually healthier to dine rather than "fuel up". I suppose it is a matter of preference, much as if you prefer to eat KFC over the kitchen sink.
So "developments" are created fitting a certain criteria, while if they just sold off these plots of land and allowed the citizens to PURCHASE AND BUILD WHAT THEY "need, want and desire" home ownership would be much more in reach of the younger generations.
Of course the OP, being an urban dweller from the Bronx has a specific informed opinion completely unrelated to the actual ECONOMICS of how housing is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of sustaining a solid, affordable, thriving community and COUNTRY.
God help us, if these politicians have their way we'll all be living in government sanctioned shoe boxes.And of course, the next phase is suburbs being forced to subsidize cities, instead of OPENING UP the citizen's land and encouraging the city dwellers to share in the dream.
I'll take my Oregon Urban Growth Boundaries any day over urban sprawl. That is the great thing about the US, right? You can just move to a different state that has similar values to you. Don't want to save your agricultural land and natural areas, there are states that are open zoning like Texas. Perfect for people that don't value that. Oh and Senate Bill 100 that created Urban Growth Boundaries was done by a Republican Governor because he realized that the agricultural industry was a powerhouse of the Oregon economy that produces annual incomes for family farms. Building a house is a one time job.
People that don't mind dense living in order to preserve the beauty of the land, Oregon and Washington might be more inline with your values.
People that don't value grasslands, forests, wetlands and such can move to states where those aren't valued. There are plenty of them. You need a government to allow you to build wherever you want because you value that. I want a government to preserve the earth, because I value that. There is a place for everyone in the US. Thankfully we have 50 states, with 50 unique identities so that our citizens can find a place that generally shares their values.
You and I just define sustaining a solid, thriving community, and country differently.
So "developments" are created fitting a certain criteria, while if they just sold off these plots of land and allowed the citizens to PURCHASE AND BUILD WHAT THEY "need, want and desire" home ownership would be much more in reach of the younger generations. Builders and individuals alike.
Of course the OP, being an urban dweller from the Bronx has a specific informed opinion completely unrelated to the actual ECONOMICS of how housing is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of sustaining a solid, affordable, thriving community and COUNTRY.
HOUSING is not just some place to sleep at night. The OP's mother understood this.
God help us, if these politicians have their way we'll all be living in government sanctioned shoe boxes. And of course, the next phase is suburbs being penalized and forced to subsidize nearby cities, instead of OPENING UP the citizen's land and encouraging the city dwellers to share in the dream.
WAKE UP AMERICA and get involved in your local governments.
Community? There is no community anymore unless it's the GLOBAL one. Some would feel guilt in actually choosing and building their own home, too individualist. Many would not know what to do with a piece of land. Everything must be provided. I can see us all living in pods someday like in the Matrix.
As half of a married couple well into our 30s, I can share my perspective. My wife and I have been looking at larger properties in Upper Manhattan, which cost the same, price-wise, as the smaller properties we rented in parts of Brooklyn and Queens close to the city. I am handling the bulk of the search currently, and our intention is to rent for two more years, then buy. I am an amateur musician, and my equipment takes up a certain amount of space. I need, at minimum, space for a keyboard, a sheet music stand, my bass, and my amplifiers. While I practice and record with noise-canceling headphones, I'd also prefer my practice room to face an exterior wall, such as an alleyway, in the event that any noise or vibrations leak. I hate to bother my neighbors.
My wife has a number of technical and creative hobbies that require a spacious desk, a set of filing cabinets, and space for an easel. Southern exposure also helps. Finally, we each work at home a decent amount and appreciate having a dedicated workstation with a large monitor for detail-oriented high-tech work. We obviously only need one bedroom, but we're looking at 2-br, 2-br with office, and 3-br arrangements because the increased space boosts enjoyment of our hobbies and professional endeavors, and thus, our quality of life. Finally, we have family and friends up for long weekend visits, so being able to offer them a spare bedroom as an alternative to a pricy hotel is something we value. We are classic DINKS and will remain that way as we head into our 40s and beyond.
Lastly, we are not talking extravagant places here, so I appreciate that my perspective is New York City-centric. The properties I've been checking out/researching are large by New York standards but don't come close to a large suburban/exurban home with a generous yard or even acreage. We are talking apartments in the $1500-2200 range, which seems expensive by national standards, but which is far, far below our HH income times 40. (HH income X 40 is the minimum you need to make to rent in NYC with few exceptions.)
I live in NYC, moved from LA last year. I am part of a couple. We have a small dog. Our co-op in NYC is about 950 square feet, which to me is PLENTY of space. Our place in LA was right around 1100, which frankly felt huge for two people.
Recently I went house hunting with friends (a couple) who are looking for a place in New Jersey. They went on and on about how they HAVE to have at least 2500 square feet, they just could never deal with anything less. Bigger is better.
But the facts are that they have no intention of starting a family. They both work very high pressure jobs and travel a lot for work, so they are not home much at all. They have no pets. No major hobbies which require a dedicated space. Not even a lot of furniture. They live in a place right now that is about 1800 square feet and they have rooms that they literally never go into and they have to hire people to clean. When guests visit, they rarely stay with them (because of their schedules and hours) and more often than not book a hotel or even crash at my place because I live in the city (and not in Jersey..no offense to anyone, but Manhattan has much more of a draw for visitors).
So, why is there this obsession with space? It seems uniquely American to demand a much bigger house than you could possibly use. Don't people understand that you have to heat, cool, clean, furnish and do upkeep on all that additional space? Why do people want to have rooms that have no function?
If you have a large family, space is paramount of course. But a single person? A couple? Can anyone explain this to me?
We live in a house that is almost 5k sq ft.
Me, husband, 3 kids.
Husband and I have dedicated office space. We often work from home and need the quiet space for teleconferences.
Each kid has a separate bedroom. We have a guest bedroom because the inlaws come and stay for a week twice a year.
We have formal dining and eat in kitchen.
We have a 3-car garage (and it stores 3 cars). We plan to build a 4th garage. Because we will have 4 cars.
We want a dedicated workout room and will probably dedicate space to a home theater eventually.
Having space means having options. If you can afford it and you want it, that's what you buy. Why is this so perplexing?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I can see that. But 1100 square feet provided me with plenty of "alone space." 2500 would seem that you probably don't like your spouse that much...
Everyone is different. You can be mighty fond of and in love with your spouse but still be the personality type that needs breathing room. Introverts in particular might need a little extra room where they can go to chill out. Those who like having their space their way can have a dedicated space to do so. Their partner can have their own space as well.
The world takes all types...
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.
