just a complaint (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Lakeville: sales, mortgage, lenders)

[scooby101]

live in the lakeville area which i love he area! But as a single woman all they seem to build are 400,000 dollar homes and more or townhouses. and even the townhouses right now they aren't building.

wish that some developers would build new small homes for people that can't afford and don't need a huge home.

[uptown_urbanist]

I have no idea what the market is like out in Lakeville, but if it's true that there's little smaller housing going in that seems like a lost opportunity. Seems like fewer people these days want huge houses, and with smaller families all that space is often unnecessary. Wonder if there will eventually be a lot of people stuck with big houses that they can't sell.

You could always buy yourself a piece of land and build your own place, if you want new construction. There are some really nice plans out there these days for smaller houses; Tumbleweed has both the extreme tiny houses as well as well-designed cottages in the 800+ square foot range, for example, although there are undoubtedly cheaper alternatives.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

I totally agree, and not just for Lakeville, but all suburbs.

Why can't any developer in any suburb at least TRY to build a neighborhood like those in Minneapolis or St. Paul, with single-family homes that are about 1,500 SF on lots 30-40 feet wide and 100-150 feet deep? It's not exactly CRUSHING density, it's very reasonable living accommodations! I'd consider living in a place like Lakeville if there were neighborhoods like that, and I fancy myself as an "urbanist"!

It starts with the streets, which (somebody decided) simply cannot be in straight lines and right angles in the surburbs, OR connect with other streets from neighboring developments or suburbs. Who made that rule? Even if people freak out about the prospect of looking down a street and not seeing the end of it, why can't you build streets one or two blocks long in "T" formations as a compromise? Straight streets are the genesis of sustainable urban development and lot sizes. Anything less usually results in wasted land use.

I'll stop now before I really get off on a rant....

[ISU345]

I completely agree! I love the style of the 1920's bungalow but I am little scared of buying something that may need a lot of upgrades in the future (plumbing, electrical, windows). I would love a new smaller home but they just do not build them.

I have studied those tumbleweed plans and plan on building one some day out on a large piece of land but for now at this point of my life I need to be near the cities for work.

[pvoyd]

I think the problem with new smaller houses is similar to that with (near)luxury small cars. The cost to build has a significant fixed component, and thus is non-linear with the size of the house, so a smaller (detached) house may not cost significantly more than a "normal" size one. In the estimate of builders, the number of people willing to pay not much less money for much less space does not justify these projects.

Additionally, I would not be surprised if a bank had some trouble appraising a 1,500 sq ft house for $300,000 when it routinely appraises 3,000 sq ft houses for, say, $400,000 (the number given by OP.)

Perhaps it is somewhat obsolete, but Tracy Kidder's "House" is a fascinating view into building a new custom single-family house in the US, describing the relationships between the buyers, the architect, and the builders.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by pvoyd

I think the problem with new smaller houses is similar to that with (near)luxury small cars. The cost to build has a significant fixed component, and thus is non-linear with the size of the house, so a smaller (detached) house may not cost significantly more than a "normal" size one. In the estimate of builders, the number of people willing to pay not much less money for much less space does not justify these projects.

Additionally, I would not be surprised if a bank had some trouble appraising a 1,500 sq ft house for $300,000 when it routinely appraises 3,000 sq ft houses for, say, $400,000 (the number given by OP.)

Perhaps it is somewhat obsolete, but Tracy Kidder's "House" is a fascinating view into building a new custom single-family house in the US, describing the relationships between the buyers, the architect, and the builders.

My 1250 square foot house is appraised for just under 300k. But admittedly we are not in Lakeville.

Although I do think you have a very valid point, and agree that the issue of appraisals and comps is an issue. Our area does have some houses of similar size, so the appraisers have recent sales to point to as justification for the price. I'm sure lenders and the ability to get a mortgage have a role in all of this, too.

[pete6032]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

I totally agree, and not just for Lakeville, but all suburbs.

Why can't any developer in any suburb at least TRY to build a neighborhood like those in Minneapolis or St. Paul, with single-family homes that are about 1,500 SF on lots 30-40 feet wide and 100-150 feet deep? It's not exactly CRUSHING density, it's very reasonable living accommodations! I'd consider living in a place like Lakeville if there were neighborhoods like that, and I fancy myself as an "urbanist"!

It starts with the streets, which (somebody decided) simply cannot be in straight lines and right angles in the surburbs, OR connect with other streets from neighboring developments or suburbs. Who made that rule? Even if people freak out about the prospect of looking down a street and not seeing the end of it, why can't you build streets one or two blocks long in "T" formations as a compromise? Straight streets are the genesis of sustainable urban development and lot sizes. Anything less usually results in wasted land use.

I'll stop now before I really get off on a rant....

Isn't there a neighborhood like that out in Shakopee?

[ropper111]

Why do people who want to live in small houses, want to live in Lakeville? Simply doesn't make sense

[scooby101]

I'm from this area and like it. Not sure why that doesn't make sense to be honest.

[plain and simple]

The only way that's going to happen, scooby101, is if you:

• Find and buy a small house that's already existing - and likely needing a lot of repairs - and fix it up yourself.
  
• Buy some land and build your own.

Why wait for a builder to build it? Have it built for yourself. It would be the same price, if not less than someone would charge for it if they had to build it. They want a profit, after all.

Builders want big projects. The days of caring for everyone's needs, especially those who want small and inexpensive, are long gone. The sooner you realize that, the better or you're going to waste years waiting and complaining. (Not at all trying to be harsh or mean! But, it IS the truth.) Nobody is going to build small houses for one person to sell cheaply just because someone needs one.

Have you thought about investing in a tiny house? They're a fraction of the price of a home. They're also a fraction of the size, but that's the beauty of it. How much room does a single person, or even a couple, really need? It's my plan once I have a place to put it. 250 sq ft (which is a medium-sized tiny house) is all the room I, and my cat, will ever need. If you don't know what a tiny house is, go to YouTube and do a search for them. Or in Bing or Yahoo images. There's also a show on TV called Tiny House Nation.

Good luck.