Fulshear Run (Houston, Sugar Land, Cinco Ranch: fit in, house, middle school)

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

It would be nice to see more acreage communities. People need space.

People are free to move to outlying rural areas. Lots of space at reasonable price. Even some acreage communities, some with deed restrictions if you don't want neighbors who can put up a trailer house. Just be prepared to have a septic system.

Or move to a place with a lowly-regarded school system within the metro where large lots are cheap. AKA, northside Houston.

Usually economically ridiculous to create them in existing suburban areas though, unless as I said you're selling to the 0.5%, meaning very high-dollar priced homes.

So an 8,000 square foot lot isn't "space"? People "need" more? People may "want" more, but "need" seems a reach.

Thank goodness counties can't enact large-lot-only restrictions, and that municipalities in the Houston area don't behave like they do in New England with their horrible anti-freedom un-American elitist oversize minimum lot size regulations.

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

People are free to move to outlying rural areas. Lots of space at reasonable price. Even some acreage communities, some with deed restrictions if you don't want neighbors who can put up a trailer house. Just be prepared to have a septic system.

Or move to a place with a lowly-regarded school system within the metro where large lots are cheap. AKA, northside Houston.

Usually economically ridiculous to create them in existing suburban areas though, unless as I said you're selling to the 0.5%, meaning very high-dollar priced homes.

So an 8,000 square foot lot isn't "space"? People "need" more? People may "want" more, but "need" seems a reach.

Thank goodness counties can't enact large-lot-only restrictions, and that municipalities in the Houston area don't behave like they do in New England with their horrible anti-freedom un-American elitist oversize minimum lot size regulations.

No, 8000 sq ft is not space, in my opinion. It's cramped with a one story house (because of build restrictions) and I guess could be considered ok with a two story home (barring building restrictions).

[jtothemak]

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

No, 8000 sq ft is not space, in my opinion. It's cramped with a one story house (because of build restrictions) and I guess could be considered ok with a two story home (barring building restrictions).

Put a 2000sqft two story on 8000sqft lot and that is lots of yard to enjoy. Put a 3500sqft one story and you barely get a yard. But our culture is we want that big mini mansion so we go for the huge house on the little lot instead of a smaller house on a bigger lot.

[Zoo2000]

Originally Posted by jtothemak

Put a 2000sqft two story on 8000sqft lot and that is lots of yard to enjoy. Put a 3500sqft one story and you barely get a yard. But our culture is we want that big mini mansion so we go for the huge house on the little lot instead of a smaller house on a bigger lot.

Agreed. When I lived in Westbury, backyards seemed huge...but that's because the houses were ~2000 sq ft on 8000 sq ft lots. Those house were built in the 50s/60s. Fast forward 50 years and houses have gotten bigger and are taking up more and more of the lot. You can see this in both suburbs (80 ft deep 1 story homes on a 120 ft deep lot minus minus a 25 front yard = small backyard) as well as in core areas (compare original homes in West U vs. newer construction).

I would love to live on an acre, in a good school district, have the option to raise chickens and goats, and be close enough to work (Energy Corridor) to have a reasonable commute ...havent found that yet...

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by jtothemak

Put a 2000sqft two story on 8000sqft lot and that is lots of yard to enjoy. Put a 3500sqft one story and you barely get a yard. But our culture is we want that big mini mansion so we go for the huge house on the little lot instead of a smaller house on a bigger lot.

If you say so on enjoying an 8000 sq ft lot. I couldn't do it.

The other problem is that people aren't building a 2000 sq ft house on an 8000 sq ft lot. They are building 3k-4k+ sq ft houses on 5000-7600 sq ft lots (some smaller) and slightly larger lots out in the burbs. To each their own I guess.

I went for the bigger house on the bigger lot. Still decided I wanted more yard/land. Plan on buying land here shortly and building the much bigger forever home.

I do have some friends going to look at Fulshear Run this weekend. I'll get some feedback from them and post back.

[quangp]

Originally Posted by Zoo2000

Agreed. When I lived in Westbury, backyards seemed huge...but that's because the houses were ~2000 sq ft on 8000 sq ft lots. Those house were built in the 50s/60s. Fast forward 50 years and houses have gotten bigger and are taking up more and more of the lot. You can see this in both suburbs (80 ft deep 1 story homes on a 120 ft deep lot minus minus a 25 front yard = small backyard) as well as in core areas (compare original homes in West U vs. newer construction).

I would love to live on an acre, in a good school district, have the option to raise chickens and goats, and be close enough to work (Energy Corridor) to have a reasonable commute ...havent found that yet...

Sure you can but can you afford it?

[NTexas2010]

Originally Posted by quangp

Sure you can but can you afford it?

North Richmond / Fulshear area, if you're willing to leave early enough to get on the GP to I-10.

We do live on acreage, have chickens, no goats, and I commute to BW 8 and 59. Tax rate of 1.9%.

[Zoo2000]

I understand why they do it, but I hate how builders make you buy bigger houses on their larger lots. I would love to have a 2500 sq. foot how on an 80 ft lot and have tons of space in the yard, but in every MPC I've seen, the builder won't let you build a smaller plan (ie a 60 ft plan) on a larger lot. How did they do it in the old days (i.e pre MPC-era where you can get lots of yard with less house)--it's hard to imagine that the builders were willing to make less profit.

I say all this in contact of Fulshear Run as well--the Trendmaker plans are HUGE and expensive (obviously)...

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Zoo2000

I understand why they do it, but I hate how builders make you buy bigger houses on their larger lots. I would love to have a 2500 sq. foot how on an 80 ft lot and have tons of space in the yard, but in every MPC I've seen, the builder won't let you build a smaller plan (ie a 60 ft plan) on a larger lot. How did they do it in the old days (i.e pre MPC-era where you can get lots of yard with less house)--it's hard to imagine that the builders were willing to make less profit.

I say all this in contact of Fulshear Run as well--the Trendmaker plans are HUGE and expensive (obviously)...

It's economics. Builders can't afford to put smaller homes on larger lots, the numbers don't work unless they want to ask for a sky-high $/built sq.ft., which would make the home difficult to sell or appraise for mortgage.

Back in the day, land values were just much cheaper, which enabled the smaller cheaper house on large lot phenomenon. Those days are gone unless you are willing to live in areas with less well-regarded schools.

[texasroots77]

Looks like Trendmaker Homes is offering a mix of plans ranging from 3400-5000+ square feet. | Trendmaker Homes