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.
Makes sense to me, but it's a good example of why MA has the housing crisis that it does. This is one of the most densely populated states in the country. It should not rank anywhere near the top (or even in the top half) of the largest lot sizes in the U.S. It's basic supply and demand, and large minimum lot sizes (especially in the suburbs) as well as limited multi-family zoning outside of the urban core, means limited opportunity to accommodate the demand for housing here.
It’s not a waste of space, it just means that unlike most of the Northeast, we have vast amounts of unspoiled wilderness and nature at our fingertips.
All while you're cramped into one small area with swaths of subdivisions are far as the eye can see with lot sizes under 10k? I saw what it looked like flying into LA last month and damn, I've never seen so much sprawl in my life. It's like they plopped down the entire population in a few valleys with gigantic mountains bordering them from behind. I was kind of in awe at how poorly planned and overly crowded it looked and felt. They could've laid it out much better with more space for each community instead of sardine suburbs.
1 - Vermont
2 - New Hampshire
3 - Maine
4 - Montana
5 - Alaska
In recent decades none of these states have seen a large influx of population gains nor do they have any medium to large metro areas with large growth demand. But moreover what is key to sustaining large lot sizes is that none of these states have really had any big suburban growth and the lion's share of home building in the US in recent decades has been suburban growth.
Though Montana has seen considerable growth and it gained a second congressional district in the most recent census, the draw to the nation's 4th largest state has always been its wide open spaces. For developments, a large ranch can be subdivided into "ranchettes" or five acre parcels.
New Hampshire is somewhat of an anomaly since the southern part of the state has taken in some suburban growth, but for the most part the home building trends have been largely exurban with some decent lot sizes included (usually somewhere between a 1/2 acre to two or three acres). Also in true northern New England fashion, there are no shortage of NIMBY towns, many of which have minimum lot sizes of two acres for new home building with well and septic and no sewer connections.
Vermont has some of the strongest anti-development laws in the country with an arduous environmental review process for new home building and that's the way they like it. Though trends have recently changed as Vermont saw very little population growth in the 2010's, only recently since the pandemic has the state had an uptick in growth. This has created gridlock as new home building is now needed to take it in, so they will be muddling over the current laws in place for new development for a while. Vermont has always been a rural state, and only one county has any suburban development (Chittenden County). But even the suburban areas are semi rural in many parts.
Also pointing out Georgia is #10 in lot sizes. I was recently in Atlanta back in October in the northern suburbs (Sandy Springs /Dunwoody) and I noticed that the lot sizes were pretty generous and well above average for your typical US suburbs. It was actually really nice, many of them with big shady trees and a fair amount of privacy. Much of the Southeast is exceptional in this regard where you can still get a decent lot size in the suburbs. Though I know this is changing and lot sizes are shrinking in places like the metro areas of NC and the older and more affluent suburbs naturally have the biggest lot sizes.
Four out of five (NV/CA/AZ/TX) have had an explosion of population influxes resulting in new suburban development in recent decades. Though lot sizes were a lot bigger for suburban developments in the 60's - 80's, really since the 2000's the lot sizes given for new development of single family homes in most of the country are tiny. Nevada and Arizona have yards with desert xeriscaping so large grassy lawns aren't needed. Illinois, though it's lost some population, as a state still has a huge urban and suburban population proportion in Chicagoland contrasted with agricultural land in the remainder of the state.
Generally not surprising the southwest is notorious for small lots. Illinois surprises me a bit. Some Chicago suburbs have very large lots.
Makes sense to me, but it's a good example of why MA has the housing crisis that it does. This is one of the most densely populated states in the country. It should not rank anywhere near the top (or even in the top half) of the largest lot sizes in the U.S. It's basic supply and demand, and large minimum lot sizes (especially in the suburbs) as well as limited multi-family zoning outside of the urban core, means limited opportunity to accommodate the demand for housing here.
Connecticut looks to have a similar predicament.
It's just jarring that it's tied with Alabama, where one of the things it notes to perspective industry is the availability of large lots.
The irony of this list is interesting. I've been fascinated traveling to places like California or Nevada that have more land than the entire East coast basically. Yet their lot sizes are smaller on average than older East coast states where land is at such a premium.
So I'm going to move to one of these West coast states where they have oodles and oodles of land yet everyone lives on top of each other? And yeah I get that a lot of those larger states have a lot of uninhabited land masses but then what the hell's the point of moving to one of these destinations if your argument is we want more space?? I've always found this to be such an odd anomaly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thealpinist
Certain states like CA, WA, OR put major growth restrictions on land consumption. Mainly due to efforts to control further sprawl. British Columbia is the same way. It’s meant to protect fertile farmland and working forests. Wouldn’t be surprised if Montana starts doing the same thing.
I've wondered the same thing about lot sizes and got my answer a couple years ago on why there is such a big difference between the East and West, and why the Midwest is the transition zone. The Midwest was under the Jefferson survey which extended to many of the interior western states too eventually. It's how even the rural areas are on grid layouts in the Midwest.
The East has more land owned by independent landowners that will sell/subdivide their land for development. It's why development is less uniform and why you see weird things like this in some neighborhoods (this is in suburban Atlanta): https://goo.gl/maps/XahkdvD8czq41k6q9. I'm assuming the homeowners in the bigger house owned the entire land the neighborhood was built on, but they didn't want to rebuild/move so the developers built around them. I have never seen something like this west of the Mississippi. They even got the developers to stop the neighborhood sidewalk right at their house (and the sidewalk picks up again after their house...in the middle of a suburban neighborhood).
Meanwhile in the West, there was less of this due to the US population there being newer. Land was plotted in preparation of people coming from the suburbs to the city. You didn't see that in the East, where it is mostly the cities that were planned, but the suburbs are very low dense for the reasons I stated above. There were far less independent landowners in the West. And folks more willing to give it up (esp in CA) if the compromise is a comfy ocean/mountain view lot.
All while you're cramped into one small area with swaths of subdivisions are far as the eye can see with lot sizes under 10k? I saw what it looked like flying into LA last month and damn, I've never seen so much sprawl in my life. It's like they plopped down the entire population in a few valleys with gigantic mountains bordering them from behind. I was kind of in awe at how poorly planned and overly crowded it looked and felt. They could've laid it out much better with more space for each community instead of sardine suburbs.
I live in the PNW and that's not common here. Both WA and OR have an urban growth boundary which limits sprawl.
I remember hearing a CA expat talk about moving to Vermont once. They made a big deal about the price per acre on their property. I remember thinking to myself "meh, I bet they have tons of cheap large lots there. He's not buying anything special" well, looks like I was right.
As for Nevada, No surprise if you ever visit. Lack of water forces smaller lots there.
Ive talked to retirees who've complained about the small lots quite a few times. It's a pretty known issue there.
Texas being top 10 is a surprise. I know they've built a ton of houses in recent years, but you always hear about lot size bragging there. I was thinking 20-25 range for Texas.
Lastly, Alaska not being #1 was a small surprise as well.
Lastly, Alaska not being #1 was a small surprise as well.
The same situation as WA/OR/BC applies to Alaska. A lot of the land is federally owned/affiliated with tribal property or not even developable. Property prices are very expensive in Alaska.
All while you're cramped into one small area with swaths of subdivisions are far as the eye can see with lot sizes under 10k? I saw what it looked like flying into LA last month and damn, I've never seen so much sprawl in my life.
LA is the most densely populated urban area in the entire country.
Quote:
It's like they plopped down the entire population in a few valleys with gigantic mountains bordering them from behind. I was kind of in awe at how poorly planned and overly crowded it looked and felt.
But why would Los Angeles need to be as low density as the Boston urban area? If that were the case, it would be even more sprawled out, instead Los Angeles fits 13 million people into approximately 1500 square miles, that sort of density is what the Northeast should aspire to be.
Quote:
They could've laid it out much better with more space for each community instead of sardine suburbs.
You are literally describing sprawl. LA would be 300 miles wide under the scenario you descibe is a nightmare.
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.
