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.
Dining rooms and porches are wasted space. Family rooms and living rooms are there so kids can have a place to watch TV while parents watch something else. It's quite handy to have a living and a family room though I suppose they could just watch TV in their bedroom. Extra bedrooms or bonus rooms and bathrooms I have no objection too. I don't see the point of the article except to say that dining rooms are pointless, but most middle class homes built today don't come with dining rooms or porches anyways. They come with the rooms people use.
It depends on the set up of the rooms. Our porch is long and wide. it has the 12-foot high ceiling. It is in front of the community park and playground. We have a porch swing as well as table and chairs to eat and talk to our neighbors. It's our outside living room. The floor plan is open to the kitchen, living room, foyer etc so the dining room as a great view of the kitchen, living room, extended porch etc. I enjoy both.
People seem to use big houses to take the place of the outdoors. If you have a lot of useable outdoor space and halfway decent weather you don't need to hang around in your house all day. But if your mobility is limited or the weather is awful it might be nice to 'change the venue' by moving into different rooms during the day.
I think the need for a big house is equal parts generational and psychological.
As a forty-something with a professional career in medicine, I have been tempted to "buy as much as I can afford" as a signal to others that I had "made it." Certainly older colleagues in my field live in McMansions/gated communities. My husband and I have one daughter who was raised in a very charming but more modestly sized Victorian home on a small urban lot. 1800 square feet was plenty of space for the three of us and in the city we lived in, it was considered to be a very generous size. We currently live in a space that is about 1650 sq ft, historic home, also in a fantastic location and have a housekeeper and landscaper/gardener to keep everything looking perfect. Our home was actually featured in a few publications. Bigger is not always so impressive as a well kept smaller space. We use all the rooms and have a guest suite for friends and family to stay with us.
My parents who were baby boomers thought a big house was a status symbol and bought a 4000 square foot space once the kids moved out and they had extra disposable income. (We grew up in a house that was closer to 1600 square feet, four people.) They were excited about it and invited everyone over for a few years but it became apparent very quickly that they didn't use most of the space. As they aged, the house became a burden but they refused to let go of it as it symbolized something about their status. Eventually mobility problems took their toll and the house was put up for sale. It had been a decade or more since it was updated in any way and it didn't fetch the oohs and aahs they wanted from buyers. They were insulted with the (fair) offers they got and saw losing that big house as shorthand for them "being poor." Which it wasn't.
My daughter is in her 20s and bought a house that is about 1400 square feet. She is married and just had a baby. Her house is wonderfully designed and well kept and in an area of prime real estate. I doubt she will leave for many years. She had the opportunity for a new build that was twice the size at the same price point in a brand new community but said that having a bigger house held "no appeal" as she does not want to clean it or heat it. Among her friends there seems to be an emphasis on living somewhere walkable and charming rather than a big new build in a planned community.
As a forty-something with a professional career in medicine, I have been tempted to "buy as much as I can afford" as a signal to others that I had "made it." Certainly older colleagues in my field live in McMansions/gated communities. My husband and I have one daughter who was raised in a very charming but more modestly sized Victorian home on a small urban lot. 1800 square feet was plenty of space for the three of us and in the city we lived in, it was considered to be a very generous size. We currently live in a space that is about 1650 sq ft, historic home, also in a fantastic location and have a housekeeper and landscaper/gardener to keep everything looking perfect. Our home was actually featured in a few publications.
We have a beautiful home and it certainly could be looked on as a "status symbol" by some people, sure. But its not big by the current standards and a lot of people might never consider it a status symbol on that basis alone. A big house signals financial comfort to many people in a way a smaller home does not. We have even had colleagues of ours call our home "tiny" and make the comment that they could fit two or three of our house in theirs.
If they're going to build them big, why not buy them? Sales data around here shows that unless you are near the college campus where a smaller home can be rented out, smaller homes have poor resale value because this is a family oriented area and families tend to want 4 bedrooms, 2 baths minimum. The biggest issue around here with many existing homes that were built over here is the lack of a 2 stall or larger garage. This isn't Florida.. people here love their garages. One stall is unacceptable, and 2 stall that is under 24x24 which is probably more than half, also unacceptable. I got lucky and there was a storage shed with my house (estate auction)
They must have done that study in the winter. I am on my porch/outside longer than any other room in my house.
It is not surprising. Many rooms in most houses are not used. My MIL's house has 12 rooms total. She uses 3.
Yeah, I wondered about the outdoor space. I wasn't sure if they purposefully excluded it, if weather was an issue or if they were claiming that at least for this particular example, that space wasn't being used at all.
The latter seems unlikely to me, post people I know regularly use their outdoor space. But you never know, I guess.
I am torn on the house size. On one hand I want to define convention of getting bigger house for no reason & stay in a cozy small (decent size) house that meets my need. But on other hand, I go in to friends newly build 2000+ sqft house and notice how nice it is to be a guest in a big house vs. hosting gathering in small house & I want the big house. For me and hubby, I rather stay in a cozy house and save money. But I don't want to invite rest of my family (I have 20+ people) over. But I do want those family over. However, honestly I might host 2 - maybe 4 max parties per year. Do I need a bigger house just for those parties?
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.
