Any issues with buying TOO big a house? (Austin: renting, loan)

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by triwing

Actually, I think the opposite could be true as well: having a very small house could make you feel trapped.

Nah small equals cozy in my book. Texans need to get over their obsession with large sizes of everything b/c its a bit juvenile like going for the biggest present under the tree first when you are 8 years old. None of my rooms have an echo either. Plus with a small house you could always expand it; makes more sense than taking sq. footage from a large home.

[triwing]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Nah small equals cozy in my book. Texans need to get over their obsession with large sizes of everything b/c its a bit juvenile like going for the biggest present under the tree first when you are 8 years old. None of my rooms have an echo either. Plus with a small house you could always expand it; makes more sense than taking sq. footage from a large home.

I think you need to grow up. We're not talking about Texas in general, so I have no clue where your insult comes from.

I like houses that are 2,000 s.f. I grew up in one... which wasn't in Texas.

The guy who shot up that gym in Pennsylvania last summer, he had a small house. When I say small, I mean even the hallways were claustrophobic. He had mental issues of course but I can see why being in such a small space would drive him insane. You can feel enclosed in such a small space.

Open spaces open up my mind.

[triwing]

Originally Posted by jobert

- but if you have a very small house in this town, it's most likely because you live in a vibrant area that leaves little reason to stay inside. I would take an 800sf house next to Zilker Park anyday (though finding one for less than a king's ransom is it's own challenge).

There's more to owning a house than being inside of it. For one thing, I doubt I'd be able to keep all my stuff in 800 s.f.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by triwing

I think you need to grow up. We're not talking about Texas in general, so I have no clue where your insult comes from.

I like houses that are 2,000 s.f. I grew up in one... which wasn't in Texas.

The guy who shot up that gym in Pennsylvania last summer, he had a small house. When I say small, I mean even the hallways were claustrophobic. He had mental issues of course but I can see why being in such a small space would drive him insane. You can feel enclosed in such a small space.

Open spaces open up my mind.

Well the bigger-is-better mantra pervades even in "progressive" Austin which is why I related it to Texas as a whole.

Do you have any scientific evidence that shows people living in small domiciles correlates to higher crime? Then how do you explain Japan having a much lower crime rate? Or why every Western European country - all with smaller homes - having lower murder rates than the U.S. where the average new home is now over 2,000 sq. ft?

Also I find living in a large home in a suburban development where no one comes out of their homes except to do yardwork, e.g. Harris Branch, is more isolating and depressing that living in an urban environment where neighbors actually talk to each other every day.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by jobert

- but if you have a very small house in this town, it's most likely because you live in a vibrant area that leaves little reason to stay inside. I would take an 800sf house next to Zilker Park anyday (though finding one for less than a king's ransom is it's own challenge).

I found one for 80K in foreclosure right by zilker. The house was an awesome dark limestone (?) bungalow that was condemned. I couldnt convince my wife to buy it, but totally regret it.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by Austin97

I found one for 80K in foreclosure right by zilker.

When was this, 1993?

In all seriousness, I did see a cheap lot with a rat-trap house for sale in that neighborhood a few years back for real cheap that we looked at, but the kicker was the new owner had to pay a ridiculous amount in back taxes - to the tune of 60K or something steep - oh, and the house was unihabitable. Maybe we are talking about the same house. Was it on a corner lot?

[intmd8r]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Nah small equals cozy in my book. Texans need to get over their obsession with large sizes of everything b/c its a bit juvenile like going for the biggest present under the tree first when you are 8 years old. None of my rooms have an echo either. Plus with a small house you could always expand it; makes more sense than taking sq. footage from a large home.

I think it's just different strokes for different folks. I personally feel very confined in small spaces (narrow is worse for me, though, than a small square) and prefer to have space to move around and not always have to be in the same space.

But I don't think it has anything to do with going for the biggest present under the tree (and certainly has nothing to do with Texas; there are large homes all over the country). I don't have an obsession with the sq ft of a house, just the layout. My hubby is a writer so he needs an office that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the house and our son, etc. Some homes can give us that for less than 2k sq ft, but not many.

Also, with both of us being at home, it's nice to each have our spaces to "get away", so to speak. Too much of anyone is not a good thing.

We are also very big fans of change, in general. We have a habit of moving furniture around just to make it different, because we get bored with the same environment. We both get wander lust, so to combat that, having a larger house with more to "change" helps us resist the move to urge constantly, because we hate actually moving and want stability for our son as he grows up.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by jobert

When was this, 1993?

In all seriousness, I did see a cheap lot with a rat-trap house for sale in that neighborhood a few years back for real cheap that we looked at, but the kicker was the new owner had to pay a ridiculous amount in back taxes - to the tune of 60K or something steep - oh, and the house was unihabitable. Maybe we are talking about the same house. Was it on a corner lot?

It was being sold by the city as a tax foreclosure. I dont recall if it was on a corner lot, and it was probably in 2002-2003. It did not get sold on the steps of the courthouse so there was no auction, you could just buy it for whatever the tax sale amount was.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by intmd8r

I

We are also very big fans of change, in general. We have a habit of moving furniture around just to make it different, because we get bored with the same environment. We both get wander lust, so to combat that, having a larger house with more to "change" helps us resist the move to urge constantly, because we hate actually moving and want stability for our son as he grows up.

With a small house you can continually add on creating real change every year

Our neighbors must have had this bug. Their house was built in 2001 and between 2001 and 2007 when they moved out they:

Spent 80K on a kitchen remodel (brand new house!)
Added a pool with full landscaping for 80K
Redid their front lawn with a new type of grass, leveled a sloped lot with a retaining wall and fill for 20K
Remodeled their upstairs - added a new bathroom for 20K
Each year they generally replaced about 10-15K worth of furniture (prob not in the years of major remodels though)

In 2007 they moved from their 600K house to a 900K house

[wylkell]

Originally Posted by Austin97

With a small house you can continually add on creating real change every year

When i first read this i thought you meant physically adding onto the house, not upgrading it's features. This is actually my biggest problem with the current house. You cant easily change the size of a house. Yes, you can buy a small house with a large lot and cobble rooms onto it but we aren't typically talking about that with regards to central Austin homes. If you buy a 1200 sq ft house (as an example) there probably isn't a lot you can do to grow that house. So square footage should still matter for the timespan you expect to live in that house. I'm an example of the extreme, but for a couple that is recently married and looking at houses, odds are you want to plan for something bigger for when the kids come along in the next few years as you cant really "grow" a small house organically to fit more people.

I think this thread has sort of grown into two different conversations at this point. There is the discussion of house sizes and what's a good idea (or not) and then there is the discussion of the exurbs vs living closer to downtown and the difference in feel between the two. Granted, they are linked (you cant get the same house in both locations, your trading size and convenience either way), but they are still separate discussions.

There are definitely quite a few people here who love the central Austin feel, the (arguably) original flavor of Austin that you find in more central, older homes and there is definitely nothing wrong with that. It's not for everyone though, and as i think about it more, it's probably not for me. I was raised in the suburbs of the west coast and have usually lived in a suburb of some kind (ignoring the brief apartment living closer to downtown) my whole life, so the quiet, sleepy exurb outside the city seems like the place i'm going to feel most "at home". It also helps that most of my friends live in the suburbs already and that I've always worked in north Austin (for the most part). I can imagine how much it would suck if i lived up here and had to work down south (where most of my co-workers would probably live down there as well).

Of course, ignoring the fact that i'm basically going to be living in north Austin regardless of what i do, i'm still grappling with the concept of whether the adage of "Buy the most house you can responsibly afford" relates to location, size or features (probably some algorithmic combination of all three) and whether it's even a valid viewpoint at the moment.