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.
not when there's a 5000 sq ft home built on it and front door close to the curb was my point. 1/4 - 1/2 acre is fine as long as the house footprint is proportional to the lot.
fair enough, they use real brick but nearly every new construction uses faux engineered stone, or veneer. or the dreaded patched stucco. same goes for flooring.
you also notice that nobody stains mouldings, it's because they mostly use engineered products and paint them all white. doors.. nearly all new homes use cheap prefab white hollow doors. unless you're building a custom home with an engineer and builder, >90% of new homes built in past 15 years are built via inferior, cheaper materials. builders wanna make a profit, not spend money on things they would want. it all looks real nice and shiny from outside when they're just built and displayed in the real estate ad, but 10 years later when the materials fade, you wonder why you're spending so much money to fix and maintain your home. this happens to alot of people.
there is also another discussion for lumber.. trees have been cut so much that they are now cutting younger trees, which leads to weaker softer wood which cracks and rots easier. older homes were built with trees 50-100 years old. we did a renovation in our home, and used oak, and the old oak in the rest of the house built in the late 80's is clearly far superior.
Our home is 3700 sq ft in the middle of a half acre treed lot. It is proportionate and the lot is huge. Big front yard with three mature live oaks, room in the back for pool, a thirty foot tall and wide red oak, three additional mature trees, pool deck area, rose garden, begging garden and open turf for kids play space. I'm sure 1800 sq ft wouldn't make that much of a difference.
5500 on a quarter acre is another thing, but there are many who don't want a lot of land.
If people didn't want it, they wouldn't build it. And those large houses, as ostentatious as they are, aren't cheap in price and are not necessarily cheap when it comes to materials. Many of them are built by luxury tract builders which are entirely different than the "cookie cutter" models that people often deride. It all falls under different strokes, different folks. Some people feel content spending their money on faux Tuscan palaces and others are content with craftsmans. I personally have no issue with the houses in this topic even if I am not a fan.
As for my own house, it's considered neo eclectic. I have a wraparound country style porch but the brick and bay windows of newer homes. It has its own flair even if it doesn't fall under a set design.
Baby boomers were more used to 1000 - 1300 sq ft 8x10 bedrooms and so on. Today buyers insist on 3000+ sq ft houses which in a small older neighborhood resemble monstrosities.
Textbook McMansion, giant box on a lot barely big enough for it this one isn't even the worst offender by this builder. They aren't complaining about it being ugly they are complaining because the builder didn't have the decency to adhere to the way the neighborhood currently looks. Why is there a gate, why is it painted so plainly, wheres the character? You have this two story home and another one sandwiching a home half the size and they are just plain giant boxes. Those things stick out like a sore thumb surrounded by the older homes, some of those older brick homes look better these new ones that completely lack that character.
Our home is 3700 sq ft in the middle of a half acre treed lot. It is proportionate and the lot is huge. Big front yard with three mature live oaks, room in the back for pool, a thirty foot tall and wide red oak, three additional mature trees, pool deck area, rose garden, begging garden and open turf for kids play space. I'm sure 1800 sq ft wouldn't make that much of a difference.
5500 on a quarter acre is another thing, but there are many who don't want a lot of land.
Have you been in a 5000 sq ft house? They are huge! That 1800 sq ft difference you speak of is more than the size of my entire 6 room plus sunroom and pantry house that 2 people live quite comfortably in.
I have been in many 5000 sq ft houses of people with 2-3 kids and they all have unused rooms. Which is funny as I also have an unused room in my "little" house (I measure 1400' but real estate says it's 1244)
They are correct. This one isn't too bad. They are usually taller and it does have decent
landscaping. My rule of thumb is that the land around the house should be twice the length or height or else the house is too big.
We have the same issue in our neighborhood.
The old timers are happy that the Latino gangs no longer rule, but they hate the new modern houses like mine.
It's nice if you like modern. Snow would kill that flat roof. I like the fact that they kept the tree on the front lawn. They usually kill all the trees. If the other homes are more traditional or smaller I can understand the resentment because the house would not mesh with its setting. Also, homes should be getting smaller now be because family size is smaller and we need to reduce our carbon footprints.
It's nice if you like modern. Snow would kill that flat roof. I like the fact that they kept the tree on the front lawn. They usually kill all the trees. If the other homes are more traditional or smaller I can understand the resentment because the house would not mesh with its setting. Also, homes should be getting smaller now be because family size is smaller and we need to reduce our carbon footprints.
It's in Arcadia, CA, which has probably only seen an inch of snow once in the past 100 years.
As mentioned before, Arcadia is unique in the fact that it is seen as quite the destination for wealthy Chinese buyers; the city itself is being scraped into affluence.
For those who are against large houses on small lots, I'm curious as to how much a square foot of land in your neighborhoods costs. I'm not sure about Arcadia but in many LA-area neighborhoods, just the land itself is pretty expensive, so it doesn't surprise me that home builders want to maximize the living space.
My neighborhood is probably one of the worst, where an empty 6700 square foot lot is on sale for almost $3 million. I don't think most buyers would plan on spending that kind of money on the land, just to put up an 1800 sqft 3br craftsman. Arcadia's not nearly as expensive, but from my perspective, I can completely understand why lots of new construction is pretty large.
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.
