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.
At least that is what the developers would have you believe. They can certainly build more houses (they call them "homes") on postage stamp sized lots than houses on decent sized lots that people can choose to utilize as they wish, but the profitability is different. High density housing is not for everyone.
A lot depends on where you are in life and your preference as to what size lot and how much property you care to have. When we decided to relocate in retirement, we spent about six years window shopping the builders, the developments and the floor plans, as well as amenities. Most of the builders have a range of offerings - and in this area, the developments with more property were often less expensive because they were a little further "out".
it was our choice to build on a "postage stamp" sized lot that our model/floor plan just barely fit onto because we don't want a lot of grass to cut. We are fortunate to back to woods and some land the community maintains, so we have a nice view. Many of us in our community greatly appreciate having minimal yard work to maintain that gives us time to go out and play and do the things we didn't have time to (bicycling, swimming, kayaking, etc.) in the years we worked - which will also hopefully keep us active. We also like that we don't have a lot of sidewalk and a long driveway to shovel when there is snowfall. It's not for everyone for sure - which is why these builders have so many different types of communities - but it was a deliberate choice for us.
We know quite a few people who built homes on large lots and have reached the point where the maintenance is a bit beyond their physical abilities, but it costs too much to have someone do the lawn/yard care.
Oh wow, thanks for explaining to me that I'm too stupid to understand the lifestyle and neighborhood type I prefer and I've just been mislead by developers. If only I had a larger lot so that I would be forced to spend time I don't want to spend on outside maintenance instead of walking over to the park a block away from my house and getting to enjoy that instead.
Completely ridiculous. Turning down my alley to pull into the garage is exactly the same thing as turning down a street and pulling into a garage that faces the street. Except of course that it's a whole lot uglier that way.
This is what my neighborhood is like. People are out and about all the time - kids playing and riding bikes, people sitting on their porch, or out walking their dogs or pushing a stroller and taking the time to stop and chat with a neighbor. It's explicitly why people choose this neighborhood - a planned urban community - to live in.
The 21st century. A nice change from 20th century snout houses
This appears to be a simple difference of opinion, there is no need to get argumentative and rude about it.
I think what's popular in an area just varies by region, and by density, and by time of construction.
Around here... Right in town, in the "old" part of town, we'll have turn of the century homes that have a carriage house in the back. Accessed either by alley or by a long driveway from the front, many of the old carriage houses are still there, converted to garages.
Suburban homes in the NW starting in the 50s on forward had garages attached to the front... and as we've gotten more cars, and more toys, the garages have only gotten bigger. I do think a home is most attractive if you can at least SEE the front door and the front porch from the driveway, but I don't object to the sight of garage doors and I think they should be easy to access and as big as you can get. I would not want some kind of awkward turn into the garage just to make the garage not look like a garage from the street. Because no one I know ever moves in and says "I wish the garage was harder to get into and wasn't so big."
The homes that are awkward now are the ones that are NOT well designed around people arriving by car. You know the old 20's-40's homes with the front door that no one ever uses, and a back door through the kitchen that is where everyone comes and goes. We just sold one like this.... A much-loved home that has entertained people and family gatherings for 50 years, and everyone has come in and out through the laundry room all that time. No one has ever used the front door. At least not since the first car.
It's become a trend in my neighborhood, where just about all of the houses were built in the 1940's/1950's and are small ranches around 800-1200 sq feet in size for old houses to be torn down and are replaced with these hideous, generic, over-sized two-floor new houses that are completely out of proportion for the streets they are on. Not only are they ugly, they tower over the old houses and block all the sunlight and view.
In my opinion these new giant houses just seem cheap and tasteless. Just about every single new house I've seen built are one of these as well. Does no one want a modest, reasonably sized house anymore? Maybe it's because I've lived in a 800 sq foot house all my life but I simply don't understand what one is doing with all of that space. It seems ridiculous to me to be living in a 2500-3000 sq ft house if you're just a four-member family or less like the majority are around here.
This is obviously subjective, state your opinions about the new houses that have appeared in your neighborhoods and what you think about them.
You should see how they are built. You can put your finger through the drywall, if it doesn't give you a brain tumor first. The plumbing falls out within a year. A good wind and half of them are gone. The A/C units last about 4 years tops and they are $$$. They glue those houses up in a week and they come down in 20 minutes
You should see how they are built. You can put your finger through the drywall, if it doesn't give you a brain tumor first. The plumbing falls out within a year. A good wind and half of them are gone. The A/C units last about 4 years tops and they are $$$. They glue those houses up in a week and they come down in 20 minutes
I prefer the garage not be the focal point of the house. I've always said if I had the money to build my own home it would have a side entry garage. My house was built in 1970 and instead of drywall/sheetrock, the walls are plaster. This house isn't blowing down in a hurricane anytime soon.
You should see how they are built. You can put your finger through the drywall, if it doesn't give you a brain tumor first. The plumbing falls out within a year. A good wind and half of them are gone. The A/C units last about 4 years tops and they are $$$. They glue those houses up in a week and they come down in 20 minutes
I don’t get all the new construction hate. 2x6 framing, Joists that will never sag, pex pipe that won’t get pinholes like copper and pvc that will never leak. You get walk in closets, larger kitchen and bathrooms. I lived in a mid 50s house, I would never own a old home again. People say it won’t last 100 years who cares. It probably will since most products are engineered now and stronger than a standard 2x8 since they don’t have to be sistered and you can run a span 40+ ft.
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.
