Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2017, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,867,365 times
Reputation: 15839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capecarolina View Post
I live in NC. They are still building BIG here.
What's considered big in NC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2017, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,867,365 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
I live in a large planned urban community...
I stopped reading when I hit "urban." I dislike urban environments. Manhattan, for example, is my idea of the theological place of eternal punishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 10:40 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 5,904,466 times
Reputation: 2286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piney Creek View Post
Recently I've seen reports that current buyers apparently prefer smaller houses. Or maybe it's that they can only afford the smaller houses. Same result, either way.

I've also read (and noticed) that very little new construction includes such houses. Apparently builders continue to build mostly 3,000-5,00 sf McMansions. What do you make of this?

I realize that builders make more money when they build big, but if nobody is buying them you'd think they'd start building smaller. Then again, I'm not in the construction biz so what do I know?

Thoughts?
In my area, builders are doing both. They are building 5K sf houses on 1+ acre lots for $800K and 2,200 sf houses on .2 acre lots for $350K.

The main difference is that the size of the developments (# of houses). It may be 20-30 $800K houses and 200-300 $350K houses (phased, over a 5+ year period).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,867,365 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post
I perused the net on this. Where did the McMansion paranoia come from? The alternative campaign seems to be for tiny houses. Isn't there an attractive and functional, in-between alternative for the US?
You are equating McMansion with "large" and hence its antonym would therefore be "tiny." That definition is not correct. See for example McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad... | McMansion Hell


Size isn't the defining characteristic of McMansion. The defining characteristic is its poor architecture. Examples include secondary masses competing with primary masses, too many voids (windows, doors) in the wrong places so they almost resemble swiss cheese, unbalanced symmetry, incorrect proportions, etc.

These bad design implementations show up in houses of all sizes.


Here is a typical suburban house with a well-designed facade.



Here is a typical suburban house with a poorly designed facade (a McMansion):



Again, it isn't about size per se - it is bad design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 10:50 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,456,376 times
Reputation: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
True, but they are still tract houses.
I live in a 50's cape post war development. Luckily most of the houses are modified and have old growth trees around so it's less obvious but I would prefer it to look as thou houses were placed there instead of bulldozed and a neighborhood built. Unfortunately at the lower end of the market that's hard. But I think some of the modern mc mansions are worse. Around here they bull doze 20 acres put up 25 4,500 sqft houses built as cheaply as possible while still having interiors with the right trends. It all comes off looking a bit fake (the acres of off white and yellow vinyl siding doesn't help).

True custom homes are rare, most may be built for an owner but really are very similar to the other houses in a neighbor hood. There are a couple neighbor hoods in my town with true custom homes on them but most were built pre 1990. The the next town over has a few newer ones but they are huge around 6,000 sqft.

We are now seeing some infill going in with some attractive houses around 2,000 sq ft.

I grew up in a custom built house from the 1920's around 3,300 sqft it was nice and none of the other houses in the neighbor hood were similar in design at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 11:01 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,456,376 times
Reputation: 862
Here are some smaller (sub 2,500 sqft) here in Cenetral CT.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...97264027_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/community/sou...95043946_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6...94684103_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2...97690394_zpid/

These were kind of common new builds here in the 90's. During the bubble they moved up to over 3,000 sqft, there now seems to be more smaller houses being built again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 11:46 AM
 
18,548 posts, read 15,586,958 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piney Creek View Post
Recently I've seen reports that current buyers apparently prefer smaller houses. Or maybe it's that they can only afford the smaller houses. Same result, either way.

I've also read (and noticed) that very little new construction includes such houses. Apparently builders continue to build mostly 3,000-5,00 sf McMansions. What do you make of this?

I realize that builders make more money when they build big, but if nobody is buying them you'd think they'd start building smaller. Then again, I'm not in the construction biz so what do I know?

Thoughts?
I think it's gotten to the point that people with a single income often simply can't buy a house in the city because they are simply bloated and expensive. The median salary for a full-time employee is only $40k. The suburban, commuting-addicted lifestyle is really not designed with childless, petless singles in mind. I find it bizarre when people think everybody should buy a house. Do they not realize that some people DO NOT have families, DO NOT make a lot of money, and DO NOT have a reason to take on such ridiculous commutes? Oh yes, and not every renter rents a whole house for themselves, especially childless, petless singles. Many of us are just fine with a small apartment or, for many of us, roommates. So don't even try to pull the whole "You can buy for less than rent!" argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
50,374 posts, read 63,977,343 times
Reputation: 93344
My opinion is that if houses were designed better, then they could be smaller. Rooms should be designed for the way people really live, with no non essential junk stuck in them, or on them. Stupid stuff, like a huge window over a bathtub, or a useless cathedral ceiling, or a formal living room that no one ever sets foot in, are the types of things I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 12:06 PM
 
24,559 posts, read 18,259,472 times
Reputation: 40260
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post

Again, it isn't about size per se - it is bad design.
Not in my world. A McMansion is a large house built with cheap materials and poor finish. Everything builder grade. Lots of corners cut. They also tend to be inappropriately large for the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2017, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Where the sun likes to shine!!
20,548 posts, read 30,394,464 times
Reputation: 88950
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts View Post
My opinion is that if houses were designed better, then they could be smaller. Rooms should be designed for the way people really live, with no non essential junk stuck in them, or on them. Stupid stuff, like a huge window over a bathtub, or a useless cathedral ceiling, or a formal living room that no one ever sets foot in, are the types of things I mean.
Don't forget hallways. Biggest waste of space in a house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:18 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top