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.
Just wanting to whine a bit. It aggravates me so much when looking at RE advertising sites that present "photos" (which are actually drawings) of the front elevation of an unbuilt home that place that home on a beautiful treed acre lot with no neighbor houses in sight.
Then you find out, if they even list a lot size, that the 3000 sq ft house will be squeezed onto a tiny 0.12 acre lot in a big development. Trees will be rare and houses will be really close to one another with no hope of privacy unless there are no side windows. There is not one single lot that will allow that house to be situated like in the drawing.
It would be more accurate to just show the artists rendering of the front elevation with no hint at the surroundings at all. It is such a blatant attempt to mislead your brain.
Just wanting to whine a bit. It aggravates me so much when looking at RE advertising sites that present "photos" (which are actually drawings) of the front elevation of an unbuilt home that place that home on a beautiful treed acre lot with no neighbor houses in sight.
Then you find out, if they even list a lot size, that the 3000 sq ft house will be squeezed onto a tiny 0.12 acre lot in a big development. Trees will be rare and houses will be really close to one another with no hope of privacy unless there are no side windows. There is not one single lot that will allow that house to be situated like in the drawing.
It would be more accurate to just show the artists rendering of the front elevation with no hint at the surroundings at all. It is such a blatant attempt to mislead your brain.
Its basically an ad showing an idealistic dream. They are hoping to snag the denser segment of the buying public.
It is a bit frustrating.
Just as photos of townhouses without the adjoining units are frustrating.
But, the only purpose of listing photos is to draw the consumer in to look and engage.
If you make it far enough to see the properties, the photos have done their job.
Just wanting to whine a bit. It aggravates me so much when looking at RE advertising sites that present "photos" (which are actually drawings) of the front elevation of an unbuilt home that place that home on a beautiful treed acre lot with no neighbor houses in sight.
Then you find out, if they even list a lot size, that the 3000 sq ft house will be squeezed onto a tiny 0.12 acre lot in a big development. Trees will be rare and houses will be really close to one another with no hope of privacy unless there are no side windows. There is not one single lot that will allow that house to be situated like in the drawing.
It would be more accurate to just show the artists rendering of the front elevation with no hint at the surroundings at all. It is such a blatant attempt to mislead your brain.
you're considering buying an expensive new build on a 0.12 acre lot? Seems unlike you.
I have various searches that run automatically and everyday a few houses pop up that are "recommended". That often includes these potential new builds. Most of the time the listings don't even indicate the lot size. A person needs to investigate a little further to see what the typical size is in that vicinity.
And actually, I don't know what you, Bo, consider expensive. My objectives tend to be value driven and something is only expensive if it is over-valued.
I have various searches that run automatically and everyday a few houses pop up that are "recommended". That often includes these potential new builds. Most of the time the listings don't even indicate the lot size. A person needs to investigate a little further to see what the typical size is in that vicinity.
And actually, I don't know what you, Bo, consider expensive. My objectives tend to be value driven and something is only expensive if it is over-valued.
When you put in your criteria for 'searches' that run automatically, try entering the amount of land/property you are looking for within the search. i.e. 1/2 acre -0r- 25,000 sf lot. That will eliminate the annoying "big house on small lot syndrome".
At least the ads that are the subject of your post reveal the small lot sizes and will save you time and gas from doing drive bys to look at those developments.
I have various searches that run automatically and everyday a few houses pop up that are "recommended". That often includes these potential new builds. Most of the time the listings don't even indicate the lot size. A person needs to investigate a little further to see what the typical size is in that vicinity.
And actually, I don't know what you, Bo, consider expensive. My objectives tend to be value driven and something is only expensive if it is over-valued.
I don't know where the searches are, but the TMLS requires us to enter lot size, and a range. So it would have to say "0.12" and "0.0-0.25"
As to expensive, I know what 3,000 sqft new construction homes are generally selling for these days. The Wake County median of all homes is ~ $300K. So, I'd statistically define expensive as some factor above that.
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.
