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.
I don't see that same trend where I am. I am in a developed area that has relatively good access to public transportation and larger homes (~3k) are hot-as long as they are priced appropriately. The ave income in the area is above average, but not elite. One factor for my area is that it is really a family-focused city, so maybe that is why larger homes are desired. Also, for us, living in a cold weather climate we find smaller homes suffocating.
Our town is extremely kid/family oriented. We even have a Kids Village (yes, a shopping center geared entirely for kids) less than 1/2 mile from my house. Very desirable area and lots of families here, this area caters to families with children. From my observation, the larger homes are moving rather slow, even when they're priced at the same price of a smaller ranch. The single story, one level homes move alot quicker. The same held true for the town we moved from over 2 hours away. Don't know why, because this was not the trend several years ago...
But the appeal of our area evenly attracts empty nesters and childless couples, so, for all those reasons, we chose a home that would be marketable to the masses should we ever sell.
It took us 18 long months to sell our lovely, big home and we sold spring of 2008, went on the market in fall of 2006. I listened to each and every bit of feedback I got during that time, and went for something more middle of the road. Never want to have to go through that again
I guess it all depends on what the norm is for your area, and what sells.
I wonder what the people who "need" 4000sf would do if they couldn't afford it. Would any of us drop dead w/o our desired amount of space? of course not! so to me, that means it isn't needed.
I would argue that in addition to food, warmth, shelter, and clothing--we do need to be able to settle conflicts over resources with other households/groups/nations, what have you (in order to avoid being killed in wars). So yes, we do need laws and some kind of organized society/culture, which also depends on educating the masses in some way. I think the human psyche needs traditions in order to cope with most of life's major transitions, so I can see the need for those. But for the rest, yes, they are really all disposable in the end--whether or not an individual chooses to dispose of them is up to them, and that's fine, but I think it's important to recognize that every decision we make regarding consumption of resources (or getting rid of our waste--garbage, sewer, the rest) impacts others in one way or another. I just don't like the attitude of "I want X, and I deserve X, so screw everyone else who might be affected by my decision," and I do think it applies to housing choices as well.
I don't disagree with your premise...just pointing out that the slippery slope of "need" vs. "want" could potentially infiltrate your lifestyle next if we were to unravel the many knots created over time of things that society believes it's members "need" at whatever point they were introduced. If you did one google search today...you cost the human race a single cup of coffee's worth of energy resource (or thereabouts). This is more than I cost the human race today...does that come out of my "costing society" carbon debt? Or does that make us both debtors to differring degrees? How many other ways might I have saved on my debt that is less obvious than my debtor home?
My only real intended point is that technology has and can continue to make that which appears unsustainable... sustainable. We may look back (as we did after Y2k) and laugh at how silly the notion of energy/resource shortages were back in 2009. To me, that is what our society/culture should be focused on...not which members are in violation of resource morality on a single topic which is the easiest to point out.
BTW...I live in 2600 sq ft home with a family of 4. I readily acknowledge I do not "have" to live there. I could very well "survive" in much smaller if needed. But I am able to maintain it without anybody else's help by society's mechanisms for dictating sustainability...cost in currency.
My only real intended point is that technology has and can continue to make that which appears unsustainable... sustainable. We may look back (as we did after Y2k) and laugh at how silly the notion of energy/resource shortages were back in 2009. To me, that is what our society/culture should be focused on...not which members are in violation of resource morality on a single topic which is the easiest to point out.
Sure, and I agree with you that our society should be focused on increasing sustainability overall. I just think that social norms (including a norm of "green" thinking) evolve very slowly over time, and often require a great deal of social pressure or even government intervention (!!) to achieve certain greater goals. And while I certainly don't expect every person to start hyper-analyzing their consumption patterns, it can't hurt to at least *think* about what our real *needs*, compared to what we simply want for convenience or fun.
Convenience and fun are important, too--and they certainly don't have to be thrown out with the bathwater in order for our society to progress--but I hope people will keep questioning their behavior and consumption patterns as time goes on, and recognize the impact of their decisions on everyone around them. That way, hopefully in the future we CAN look back at 2009 and laugh at how inefficient we were--but to become more efficient, we all have to be willing to change our attitudes over time (including possibly buying smaller houses, smaller cars, who knows).
Our town is extremely kid/family oriented. We even have a Kids Village (yes, a shopping center geared entirely for kids) less than 1/2 mile from my house. Very desirable area and lots of families here, this area caters to families with children. From my observation, the larger homes are moving rather slow, even when they're priced at the same price of a smaller ranch. The single story, one level homes move alot quicker. The same held true for the town we moved from over 2 hours away. Don't know why, because this was not the trend several years ago...
But the appeal of our area evenly attracts empty nesters and childless couples, so, for all those reasons, we chose a home that would be marketable to the masses should we ever sell.
It took us 18 long months to sell our lovely, big home and we sold spring of 2008, went on the market in fall of 2006. I listened to each and every bit of feedback I got during that time, and went for something more middle of the road. Never want to have to go through that again
I guess it all depends on what the norm is for your area, and what sells.
Yeah, I think it is all regional. We sold our 3k sq ft 2 story in 45 days this August and we were on the short list 2 other times. Everyone that came for a showing also loved the huge basement, and the buyers were planning on finishing it more (I had put in flooring only for my wife's business). Smaller homes are at a significant discount in the areas I have lived.
Where we bought in September, 2.7K - 3k sq ft homes moved fast if they were priced appropriately. When I was looking at comps, there were MANY (relatively) 3k sq ft homes with finished basements, adding another 1k sq ft.
Sure, and I agree with you that our society should be focused on increasing sustainability overall. I just think that social norms (including a norm of "green" thinking) evolve very slowly over time, and often require a great deal of social pressure or even government intervention (!!) to achieve certain greater goals. And while I certainly don't expect every person to start hyper-analyzing their consumption patterns, it can't hurt to at least *think* about what our real *needs*, compared to what we simply want for convenience or fun.
Convenience and fun are important, too--and they certainly don't have to be thrown out with the bathwater in order for our society to progress--but I hope people will keep questioning their behavior and consumption patterns as time goes on, and recognize the impact of their decisions on everyone around them. That way, hopefully in the future we CAN look back at 2009 and laugh at how inefficient we were--but to become more efficient, we all have to be willing to change our attitudes over time (including possibly buying smaller houses, smaller cars, who knows).
Make the changes that YOU say must be made? Sometimes I wonder if people like you don't want anyone else to have anything better than them so they spin this web of nonsense to try and make other people feel bad for what they have.
I don't disagree with your premise...just pointing out that the slippery slope of "need" vs. "want" could potentially infiltrate your lifestyle next if we were to unravel the many knots created over time of things that society believes it's members "need" at whatever point they were introduced. If you did one google search today...you cost the human race a single cup of coffee's worth of energy resource (or thereabouts). This is more than I cost the human race today...does that come out of my "costing society" carbon debt? Or does that make us both debtors to differring degrees? How many other ways might I have saved on my debt that is less obvious than my debtor home?
My only real intended point is that technology has and can continue to make that which appears unsustainable... sustainable. We may look back (as we did after Y2k) and laugh at how silly the notion of energy/resource shortages were back in 2009. To me, that is what our society/culture should be focused on...not which members are in violation of resource morality on a single topic which is the easiest to point out.
BTW...I live in 2600 sq ft home with a family of 4. I readily acknowledge I do not "have" to live there. I could very well "survive" in much smaller if needed. But I am able to maintain it without anybody else's help by society's mechanisms for dictating sustainability...cost in currency.
I don't agree that we as a society have become more sustainable as time went on. We consume much more. We are less sustainable than pre-Industrial Revolution.
As to teh question when I was living at home it was family of 4 about 2000-2500 square feet just the above. Didn't seem like too much. Not too little either.
Right now I am living in about 250 square feet(by myself), so I guess thats all I need.
Make the changes that YOU say must be made? Sometimes I wonder if people like you don't want anyone else to have anything better than them so they spin this web of nonsense to try and make other people feel bad for what they have.
Uhh... I can tell you that my husband and I can afford a pretty big mansion, big cars, and all the rest--but we don't buy them, because we don't need them. This thread is about exactly what "need" means, when it comes to choosing a home--we all have our opinions, but try not to make this personal.
Just so's you know, I'm a demographer by trade. So yes, I think about these things in terms of census numbers and long-term sustainability... how much population the Earth can support. As I said, though, many people really couldn't care less about these kinds of things. You would be one of those, I assume?That's all fine and good. But I am quite sure, given the persona you are known for in these parts, that I will be beating my head against a brick wall if I try to convince you that this: ... is a culturally relative value, and one that is rather unique to Americans in recent decades. No one is born "needing" a huge house; these things are taught and acquired within our own culture. That's my point here.
So then you weren't kidding! Oh, brother, again. And I hardly call our home "huge"! Then I will concede that you are correct, I could Care less about these kinds of things.....how much population the Earth can support. After all, isn't the world coming to an end soon, anyway? I think the next date is some time in 2012? Come on, lighten up, caravan. Don't get your knickers in a not over 3000+ sq. ft. of living, please, it's not worth it. As for how many kids one family should have? While I see the intentions behind what you are, I believe, attempting to say, you really ought to quit before you really say something you shouldn't and offend the many, many folk who have more than your alloted "2 kids" per couple quota. My "persona in these parts" is the least of your worries, believe me, as it is mine. These are opinions on all topics, and I give mine the same as others give theirs. To each his/her own.
you really ought to quit before you really say something you shouldn't and offend the many, many folk who have more than your alloted "2 kids" per couple quota.
I'm fine with that. This is the internet, after all... most people reserve the right to be offended at the drop of a hat.
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.
