"Formula" for lot size in new developments? (Howe: sales, houses)

[10scoachrick]

Pardon me if I ramble a bit...I was a fair student in math and have a marketing degree; but I wonder about the formula for lot size in a new development. For example, what party benefits when a greater number of houses are built, say, along a golf course 'view' street? Seems to me the land is 'worth X' and then it is divided into parcels. Why make the lots 70', for example, and cram the requisite nicer homes onto a relatively narrow lot(by suburban golf course community standards) instead of eliminating one or two houses and having more attractive spacing that might fetch a premium for the larger lot size?

One might think the marketability of the 'relatively' narrow lots could hamper sales and hold prices down; while a more spacious lot arrangement would make the homes appear more attractive and perhaps sell faster at a higher price. Who makes the 'rules'?

An example:
There are 15 golf course lots along one stretch in the community. Presumably, the land in aggregate was worth X amount, so the original landowner gets the same dollars no matter the lot size. The builders come in and purchase the lots for their use. IF there were only 12 lots along the road, one would imagine a premium could be charged per lot for the larger, theoretically more attractive size, say 15-20 feet wider frontage. In turn, a larger structure could be built(remember, we're in the 'burbs on a golf course), allowing for 'extras' like a 4-car garage or a pool that doesn't have to be shoehorned into the back yard.

At some point, a narrow lot conjures up the "Those homes are $600K and are right ON TOP of each other" comments; while an extra 10, 15, 20 feet between homes would elicit many fewer such comments and perhaps get some oohs and aahs for the spacious yards and additional 'privacy'

Of course, the builders want to build as many homes as possible; but this isn't the last new neighborhood in the world. Plenty of other home sites out there. Why is 15 better than 12 IF a premium can be realized with the larger lots and theoretically with the price of the home?. Where is the balance point in lot size vs price assuming the neighborhood could support the increase in the final sales price?

Assuming the larger lot size doesn't simply result in a vast wasteland of St. Augustine AND the market can 'justify' a premium price for the larger lot; who stands to benefit or lose if the street has 12 homesites instead of 15?

With a very few exceptions, I would think the appearance of spaciousness vs over-crowding would be a significant marketing plus(provided all the home buyers aren't coming from NE cities where they didn't even have a parking SPACE, let alone a yard!)

Disclaimer: For the 'density' lovers out there, this is just an exercise that might reflect the 'goings on' out in the horrible 'burbs and certainly bears no resemblance to a comparable discussion on maximizing population counts in the urban core or any of that sort of stuff. 'k?

[Komeht]

Because in 99% of America people buy finished square feet. The yards are nice and all that, but they pay for the house.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Because in 99% of America people buy finished square feet. The yards are nice and all that, but they pay for the house.

BUT, if the house next to us had not been a footprint plan designed for a 20' more narrow lot, we might not have considered dropping so much money to be 'right next to the neighbors'. As it is, we have a sizable space between the structures...a feature we found/find very attractive compared to having the adjacent house 10' or more closer to us.

Plus, there's all sorts of discussion about lot size in nearly every thread about SFH purchases(less so, again, in areas where lots are minimalist by nature or design or high cost). Factors at work might be that pool I mentioned, room for pets to roam, kids to play...right on up to 'we can afford NOT to live within 20 feet of the neighbors--let's look for a larger lot'.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

BUT, if the house next to us had not been a footprint plan designed for a 20' more narrow lot, we might not have considered dropping so much money to be 'right next to the neighbors'. As it is, we have a sizable space between the structures...a feature we found/find very attractive compared to having the adjacent house 10' or more closer to us.

Plus, there's all sorts of discussion about lot size in nearly every thread about SFH purchases(less so, again, in areas where lots are minimalist by nature or design or high cost). Factors at work might be that pool I mentioned, room for pets to roam, kids to play...right on up to 'we can afford NOT to live within 20 feet of the neighbors--let's look for a larger lot'.

all those features are nice or whatever for some. . .but what people pay for is square footage. It's pretty simple, the developer is trying to maximize the return on his investment. Sure, some people might like the yard, whatever. . .but what they end up picking is the place that gives them the most square feet for the least amount of money.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Komeht

all those features are nice or whatever for some. . .but what people pay for is square footage. It's pretty simple, the developer is trying to maximize the return on his investment. Sure, some people might like the yard, whatever. . .but what they end up picking is the place that gives them the most square feet for the least amount of money.

Well, you'll just have to put us in that 1% that had as much interest in the yard size(from a minimum desired standpoint) as the house size(again, with a minimum 'requirement'). We skipped a house just down the street that was 400 sq ft larger than ours BECAUSE of the tiny lot frontage and closeness to the adjacent houses. The total lot size wasn't all that different, but the width/frontage was a deal-breaker for us(had a killer movie room, too)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

Well, you'll just have to put us in that 1% that had as much interest in the yard size(from a minimum desired standpoint) as the house size(again, with a minimum 'requirement'). We skipped a house just down the street that was 400 sq ft larger than ours BECAUSE of the tiny lot frontage and closeness to the adjacent houses. The total lot size wasn't all that different, but the width/frontage was a deal-breaker for us(had a killer movie room, too)

Ok...but don't expect developers pushing ticky-tacky sprawl to sell anything other than cheap and easy housing to cheap and easy people.

[sxrckr]

I dislike the developments with homes on small lots (under 70' across the front) and yes, we have skipped homes because if this, and yes, I think the larger lots are more attractive/marketable. For people who don't, there are other options or patio homes. But there aren't enough options for the larger lots in Texas in my opinion.

[cBach]

Many people (I'm not included in those) don't like the extra maintenance cost of extra St. Augustine when it's 100 most of the time and thus difficult to keep green (extra water being main cost). People on golf courses like that manicured lawn look which means fully replacing that St. Augustine/Bermuda lawn every 5 years after serious droughts. Also, people on golf courses tend to spend their spare time playing golf which means they really don't need a large yard, proximity to the golf course is their main concern. These reasons are why I would never be able to live in such a community.

Here in Steiner I prefer larger lots. They are hard to come by, but can be found in irregular lot sizes. This is where the developer was unable to split a lot into two lots because of an irregular size. I live on such a lot. My lot size is twice to three times most people's lot sizes in my neighborhood. By the way, the owner had problems selling the house because of the lot size. People just didn't want to mow that much grass.

I've effectively xeroscaped the back yard and it doesn't need to be mowed so it's actually not much more expensive, maintenance wise and I don't have neighbors right "on me".

[FalconheadWest]

My neighborhood has 60', 70', and 80' lots. The 80' lots are right on top of each other like the 60' lots. Why? Because the larger the lot, the larger the house, and they take up the extra space between the houses in order to put a larger foot print. Your theory doesn't work.

What would work is if people stop buying them and the builders realize they aren't building a product people want. However, since people buy the houses, the builders continue to build them because they know people will buy them.

[mesmer]

OP, I'm with you. The new developments are just too crammed together. We've been considering moving, so I went to look at a model home yesterday. If you were standing on the back patio, the neighbor's brick wall was justrightthere. And this house is worth 100k more than our current one!

I already live in the suburbs. Our lot is only 55' wide. But our house is old enough that I can stand in the backyard and not feel like my neighbor's houses are looming over me. I'd love more yard because that's what I grew up with... but it doesn't seem like it's going to happen.