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.
I Understand all these factors-and it makes sense.....I am still curious though why builders were still building 950 sq feet homes into the early 1970s? (at least in North Texas)
What has changed in the last 50+ years that has made building smaller houses non viable?
Was the land generally cheaper back then?
Surely builders have always cared about making as much money as possible....so....why were they willing to build smaller houses that sold for les $$ 50+ years ago?
I assume their as a higher demand for larger homes today?? Wonder why??
Thanks so much for all your help!
I responded to your question posted on another forum with examples of new homes built in Texas.
So, why are you insisting that small houses aren't built anymore?
I purchased a 775 sq 1950s ranch in an inner suburb of a major east coast city about 15 years ago. There might have been 4 or 5 like it in the entire town at the time. I added a room to bring the property to about 950 sq. I added a vaulted ceiling in the new room to expand the back of the house and give relief to the cramped feeling of a typical 50s ranch. For an inner suburb, it has a big, 8000 sq yard. Perfect condo alternative.
Even bigger, 1200 sq ranch homes in the town are mostly knocked down these days, or a second floor has been added.
I'm thrilled I found this home because condo fees have exploded in this area. I can age in place since it has 2 steps to get in the front door. Plenty of room for two people.
I responded to your question posted on another forum with examples of new homes built in Texas.
So, why are you insisting that small houses aren't built anymore?
Again, please list where, other than maybe HOAs or PUDs, there are minimum size limits.
I was involved for decades with development and zoning as an elected official and the only size limits I saw imposed by local governments was for maximum size, usually due to environmental reasons (runoff, greenspace, impervious surfaces, etc.) and those were more site specific rather than an actual set number for everyone.
Lucas, TX has minimum size requirements for houses in their two acre areas, which are in the deed restrictions, where there are not HOAs.
I'm sure it's not the only suburb in the US with these; it's the only suburb where I've investigated it.
Keep in mind, too, that when you say "other than HOAs" you're saying "other than the vast majority of subdivisions in urban and suburban areas platted in the last 30 years". The HOA has become so predominant that one should assume that a suburban or urban subdivision is under an HOA until it's confirmed not.
No, it wouldnt neccesarily be a deal breaker if it had everything else I wanted....was in a good location, a good deal price wise, etc...then I wouldn't rule out something 150 sq feet larger.
I just prefer under 1000 sq feet!
I also feel that their is more of a market for homes under 1000 sq feet, than builders recognize. For that reason, I still don't completely understand why we don't see homes this size built in tract communities the way they once were....
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.
Wonder why??
