Is shrinking lots size going to fix housing affordability? (Dallas: house, college dorms)

[ilovepizza1975]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

And, you're deflecting attention away from the immediate point posters here have with you - your insistence that "no one's forcing you to buy a [open floor plan, larger than you want, etc.] house with design you don't like".

Yes, in theory that's true: but you refuse to accept that for the vast majority of people there are practical limitations.

If I have a job in a particular location, a spouse with a job in a particular location, children with specific educational needs, want to live in a place that's relatively safe, and I have limited funds, then it's very likely that there are only a small number of house locations that meet my needs for rational commutes for two spouses (plus access to day care and other matters), appropriate schools, general safety, and budget. If all the houses in those areas are of a particular design type, I'm either going to make compromises on other matters and buy elsewhere (excessive commutes? Bad schools? High crime?), or I"m going to grit my teeth and compromise on the design of the house.

It is a complete fantasy to imagine that someone who's gritted their teeth, compromised and bought a house of a type they don't really want, is now going to live in a hotel for 6 months and spend half again the cost of the place to completely redesign, rebuild, remodel it to make fundamental changes in its layout. (And of course, if you really want a 1/10 acre zero-lot-line and you grit your teeth and settle for a 1/4 acre rambler because that's what's available within the above constraints, you couldn't turn it into a 1/10 acre zero-lot-line even if you DID have near-infinite time energy and resources).

You need to lift your head up and look at how actual people live and how actual people make choices in their actual real lives, not in your fantasy.

I was ready to respond to that user's post but you beat me do it and did a better job than I would have.

[TheOverdog]

It is a complete fantasy to imagine that someone who's gritted their teeth, compromised and bought a house of a type they don't really want, is now going to live in a hotel for 6 months and spend half again the cost of the place to completely redesign, rebuild, remodel it to make fundamental changes in its layout.

I agree with most of what your wrote (housing is driven by constraints and most of us have to buy what's available) but this part is just silly. People make layout changes all the time, and it's not 'half the purchase price' (not anymore, unfortunately) to change some walls around. It's not even that expensive. it's about the same price as a moderately priced used car.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by TeamLynn

If we were really green and cared about the environment, global warming and climate change, we should limit construction size. We've seen huge average home size increases. Post WWII homes were probably around 800-1100sqft. I'll bet today average home size is 2500sqft or more. Plenty of homes get built at 4000-5000sqft. Chances are very few people actually need that much space.

Correct. Plus, research I do in the course of my work has consistently shown that the majority of people are willing to live in homes well under 2,000 sq.ft.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

And, you're deflecting attention away from the immediate point posters here have with you - your insistence that "no one's forcing you to buy a [open floor plan, larger than you want, etc.] house with design you don't like".

Yes, in theory that's true: but you refuse to accept that for the vast majority of people there are practical limitations.

If I have a job in a particular location, a spouse with a job in a particular location, children with specific educational needs, want to live in a place that's relatively safe, and I have limited funds, then it's very likely that there are only a small number of house locations that meet my needs for rational commutes for two spouses (plus access to day care and other matters), appropriate schools, general safety, and budget. If all the houses in those areas are of a particular design type, I'm either going to make compromises on other matters and buy elsewhere (excessive commutes? Bad schools? High crime?), or I"m going to grit my teeth and compromise on the design of the house.

It is a complete fantasy to imagine that someone who's gritted their teeth, compromised and bought a house of a type they don't really want, is now going to live in a hotel for 6 months and spend half again the cost of the place to completely redesign, rebuild, remodel it to make fundamental changes in its layout. (And of course, if you really want a 1/10 acre zero-lot-line and you grit your teeth and settle for a 1/4 acre rambler because that's what's available within the above constraints, you couldn't turn it into a 1/10 acre zero-lot-line even if you DID have near-infinite time energy and resources).

You need to lift your head up and look at how actual people live and how actual people make choices in their actual real lives, not in your fantasy.

You may make compromises. We remodel to suit our needs.

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

I agree with most of what your wrote (housing is driven by constraints and most of us have to buy what's available) but this part is just silly. People make layout changes all the time, and it's not 'half the purchase price' (not anymore, unfortunately) to change some walls around. It's not even that expensive. it's about the same price as a moderately priced used car.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote about open floor plans and changing them.

If you think you can build a couple walls in an open floor plan house and have it be a well-designed non-open floor plan, then you haven't been in many of them. Almost invariably when I've considered that, it would end up with long skinny rooms with a window at the end (or no light at all), weird ventilation problems, walls that end in the middle of a window, etc., etc.,etc.

I think it's the height of arrogance to lecture people who find themselves facing only choices in housing (or automobiles) that they don't like, that they should simply modify it to what they do like, regardless of whether (a) it's even practical to do so; or (b) they have a few other things on their plate besides making expensive alterations; or (c) whether they have the financial resources to do so.

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by Threestep2

You may make compromises. We remodel to suit our needs.

I'm glad you have the money, time, energy, and knowledge to do so. Good for you!

[TheOverdog]

I think it's the height of arrogance to lecture people who find themselves facing only choices in housing (or automobiles) that they don't like,

Man you got a lot of gall there. You think because you are old than everything you have experienced is the only truth.


In this very thread you whatabouted Preston Hollow. We're real glad you're concerned about people's budgets.

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

Man you got a lot of gall there. You think because you are old than everything you have experienced is the only truth.


In this very thread you whatabouted Preston Hollow. We're real glad you're concerned about people's budgets.

Point...

Missed!

[Leonard123]

The bottom line is that, whether it is open or not, excessive, wasted space is dedicated to kitchen features in small homes. Cabinets and countertops within reach make better use of space. That's just a fact, plain and simple. Most people are not using their entire home for cooking demonstrations and television shows.

Back to the original topic, I've noticed that builders are not really charging drastically more for the same floor plans on larger or wider lots. It's when they put in a more square-shaped floor plan that the price starts to skyrocket. Besides land and roads, I have to wonder what there is to the building process that makes squares more costly than rectangles.

[Sunbather]

Originally Posted by TeamLynn

If we were really green and cared about the environment, global warming and climate change, we should limit construction size. We've seen huge average home size increases. Post WWII homes were probably around 800-1100sqft. I'll bet today average home size is 2500sqft or more. Plenty of homes get built at 4000-5000sqft. Chances are very few people actually need that much space.

Agreed. But part of it is what people are used to. I'm in my 30s and I grew up in 1400-1800 ft2 homes, then college dorms/apartments, then urban apartments/studios etc. My wife and I also spent time in NYC (she lived there for years).

We have a 1,000 ft2 home near white rock. Fully remodeled to our taste. It's the absolute perfect size for the 2 of us and two pets, but we do not have children.

Property taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance are all lower cost compared to larger homes. Easy to take care of, easy to clean, and it provides us enough space. I primarily work from home, but also have guitars and amps at home etc. We host regularly (this time of year, 2x a week, normally 3-4x a month) for drinks and game nights etc. And the house never feels short on space to us.

It's hard for me to imagine the need for 4,000-5,000 ft2 for a SFH, even with a couple of kids. Honestly, it's hard for me to imagine needing even 3k. But I fully understand that other people have their own preferences and wants.