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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14670
Comparing the Top 5 in lot sizes -
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.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 11-30-2022 at 06:33 AM..
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 processes 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. But this 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 its' 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.
It’s pretty much a measure of Rural population. Nevada is actually less rural than like CT because people actually live in Northeastern/Northwestern CT while NV is Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City or largely inhabited Federal land.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14670
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
It’s pretty much a measure of Rural population. Nevada is actually less rural than like CT because people actually live in Northeastern/Northwestern CT while NV is Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City or largely inhabited Federal land.
This is true, but there is also a wide gap of what you get for a suburban lot size in metro Atlanta near the Perimeter vs somewhere like Henderson, NV or even Plano, TX.
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.
Last edited by BigCity76; 11-30-2022 at 08:07 AM..
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like the West coast didn't do suburban and urban planning all too well when it started. Probably could've avoided a lot of these building restrictions. Again, stunning to see the smallest lot sizes in such huge geographic states and areas. Another benefit of the Northeast. Proper growth planning from the beginning.
Sounds like the West coast didn't do suburban and urban planning all too well when it started. Probably could've avoided a lot of these building restrictions. Again, stunning to see the smallest lot sizes in such huge geographic states and areas. Another benefit of the Northeast. Proper growth planning from the beginning.
Wait, you're saying more sprawl and lower population density is a sign of superior suburban and urban planning? Well that's a new one.
lol
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.
