Houses Getting Bigger, Not Smaller (Commentary With Stats)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Yes, but sprawl is a completely different topic. We are talking about people's housing choices and how they have a right (or shouldn't have, according to some people) to the amount of space they need and can afford without someone attacking them for it. I agree that building new developments on previously undeveloped land is terrible, but the fact is that most home purchases do not fit that description.

This thread reminds me of a thread I read in the Canada section a year ago that resulted in some very similar discussion. Here is the response I posted which makes a point that desperately needs to be stressed here.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It seems to be quite common for people who take stances that are in some way questionable to take the position that in order for other people to be open and accepting, that they must consider every opinion and view as being equally valid. Like nothing is ever right or wrong, and that the very fact that someone holds it as his opinion or preference makes it worthy of respect.

Let's be perfectly clear here. We should all respect each other's right to make decisions we don't agree with. That's the basis of free society. We should never threaten, oppress, or attack someone because they have an opinion or preference we don't agree with, nor should we lobby the government to outlaw their opinion or preference. That's part of respecting people as sovereign individuals. But just because we respect people's right to make their own decisions doesn't mean that we should respect the actual opinions or choices. And it also doesn't mean we should excuse a person's poor or irresponsible decisions just because the person happened to enjoy making them.

For example, I am opposed to smoking. I think the whole idea is stupid because of the dangers that it poses to human health, and the amount of money it wastes both on the production/distribution of the product and on associated health care costs. But although I think it should be banned in public so that non-smokers don't have to breathe it, I would never say that it should be illegal altogether. I respect people's choice to do something stupid, because that's a sacrifice I have to make to live in a society with other people. And although I wouldn't bring it up to someone just to provoke them, if someone tries to promote or defend it in a discussion I will make my position quite clear.

PS, I don't criticise suburbanism because of the common "it's boring and ugly" arguments (although I do tend to think that it is). If this was a responsible and sustainable model for development I wouldn't have anything else to say. But it is quite the opposite.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

When the U.S. gets anywhere near running out of land this might be an issue, but we aren't even in the ballpark. There are more than enough land and housing resources in the U.S. for a hundred generations to come. The vast majority of homes aren't built on previously undeveloped land and are not new construction anyway, so I don't see how that is even an issue.

This isn't about "the planet's health" but it's about some people wanting to impose their views onto others. I'm surprised that this is coming from people on this site...

It's pretty common for people to make the "there's plenty of land" arguments, but what their argument seems to hinge on is the false perception that land not built up by human civilization is spare, free, or unused land. In reality, the land is not just sitting there vacant waiting for a human in need of a place to park a house, farm or factory. The land is already being put to very valuable use by the earth's natural process like the water cycle and by millions of species of plants and animals - thousands of whom have already become extinct with many more on the same path - and we should not be taking any more land from them than what's really necessary. Not just for their sake, but for our own.

If you're wondering why people are suggesting you aren't environmentally sensitive, then that's probably why.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by JManc

?
i have a 900 sq. ft. 1 bedroom townhouse with no eat in kitchen and tiny dining area and this place isn't exactly roomy. even had to store a chair in the garage due to lack of space in living room. can't imagine 3 bedrooms in same area size.

My question is how the heck does a 900 square foot space only have one bedroom? It is what I said in an earlier post about efficiency of design, I am guessing your place is newer construction where they deliberately make the design inefficient where the bedroom or living room takes up half the space and they can't have extra rooms. I only have 150 more square feet than you and yet I have three bedrooms all with closets (one has a small walk in closet), a bathroom, a living room and an adjacent dining area. Knock out one of my bedrooms and it would be about 900 square feet. Older houses knew how to maximize space, designs nowadays know how to waste space.

[touraccuracy]

tall and skinny townhomes waste a lot of space with stairs

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

My question is how the heck does a 900 square foot space only have one bedroom? It is what I said in an earlier post about efficiency of design, I am guessing your place is newer construction where they deliberately make the design inefficient where the bedroom or living room takes up half the space and they can't have extra rooms. I only have 150 more square feet than you and yet I have three bedrooms all with closets (one has a small walk in closet), a bathroom, a living room and an adjacent dining area. Knock out one of my bedrooms and it would be about 900 square feet. Older houses knew how to maximize space, designs nowadays know how to waste space.

In my city, the older apartments are the bigger ones generally. New ones tend to be 500 to 750 sf or so for a one-bedroom. A large percentage have the interior semi-enclosed bedroom, which can't have full-height walls since it doesn't have a window.

[philvia]

Originally Posted by JManc

if they want it and can afford to buy a large home and maintain it, what does it matter to you or anyone else what their needs are?

i care because it's one of the reasons middle america and suburbs are in such bad shape. people have been prioritizing the wrong things for the past half century and it's developed into a huge problem.

when people stop putting their wants before their needs, the situation would improve, but until then...

[10023]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

My question is how the heck does a 900 square foot space only have one bedroom? It is what I said in an earlier post about efficiency of design, I am guessing your place is newer construction where they deliberately make the design inefficient where the bedroom or living room takes up half the space and they can't have extra rooms. I only have 150 more square feet than you and yet I have three bedrooms all with closets (one has a small walk in closet), a bathroom, a living room and an adjacent dining area. Knock out one of my bedrooms and it would be about 900 square feet. Older houses knew how to maximize space, designs nowadays know how to waste space.

Yes, 900 square feet is on the larger side for 1-bedroom apartment, but I'd rather have a 900 sq ft 1-bedroom than a 900 sq ft 3-bedroom, personally.

How big are your bedrooms?

Here's an example of a one bedroom that's 768 square feet, and it could certainly benefit from another couple closets and a bigger living area (to fit more than one small sofa):
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/...-YORK-NY-10012

Here's a one bedroom that's 909 square feet, and it's not exceptionally large:
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/...-YORK-NY-10007

[JManc]

^ mortgage on that apartment is $6,600/ month. i know it's soho and all but that's insane for 768 s/f.

Originally Posted by philvia

i care because it's one of the reasons middle america and suburbs are in such bad shape. people have been prioritizing the wrong things for the past half century and it's developed into a huge problem.

when people stop putting their wants before their needs, the situation would improve, but until then...

but that's neither your or my concern. if some family wants a big ugly house out in the 'burbs and they can afford it, so what?

[brickell]

It also seems to me that the actual size of the house has little to do with the sprawlyness of it. The problem with sprawl isn't the space occupied by housing, it's the space occupied by everything else that goes with it: roads, driveways, parking spaces, expressways, drive-thrus, big box stores...

[mhays]

It's also the materials used to build the house, and the resources to maintain, heat, light, and furnish it. Land area plus proximity (driving distances etc.) might be half or 2/3 of the battle.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

My question is how the heck does a 900 square foot space only have one bedroom? It is what I said in an earlier post about efficiency of design, I am guessing your place is newer construction where they deliberately make the design inefficient where the bedroom or living room takes up half the space and they can't have extra rooms. I only have 150 more square feet than you and yet I have three bedrooms all with closets (one has a small walk in closet), a bathroom, a living room and an adjacent dining area. Knock out one of my bedrooms and it would be about 900 square feet. Older houses knew how to maximize space, designs nowadays know how to waste space.

I am moving to New York and looked at a 1,050 sq ft studio apartment in a new building in Manhattan with a walk-in closet that could easily house a king size bed and a sofa. There was also a second standard sized closet. Well, maybe they're called lofts when they get to that level? Whatever it was, I liked it and placed it on my high list.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ mortgage on that apartment is $6,600/ month. i know it's soho and all but that's insane for 768 s/f.

Not saying that place is a great buy (I just did a quick search and posted one of the first hits), but welcome to Manhattan. Plus you can subtract almost $2,000/month for the tax deduction if you're comparing it to renting.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yes, 900 square feet is on the larger side for 1-bedroom apartment, but I'd rather have a 900 sq ft 1-bedroom than a 900 sq ft 3-bedroom, personally.

How big are your bedrooms?

Here's an example of a one bedroom that's 768 square feet, and it could certainly benefit from another couple closets and a bigger living area (to fit more than one small sofa):
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/...-YORK-NY-10012

Here's a one bedroom that's 909 square feet, and it's not exceptionally large:
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/...-YORK-NY-10007

And here's a $1.7M 943 sq ft apartment with no rooms

http://www.zollingernyc.com/listings...2th_street_3b/

[10023]

I know that's a nice building but $1,800/sq ft is insane, the layout sucks and that area isn't that great (Hudson River views are nice, but there's nothing to eat or do west of Greenwich St). And for an apartment that is so clearly designed for a single guy, it's a long walk to a subway.

Anyway, back to the actual point of the thread (the "right" size for a home), this is what I would consider a not-too-big, not-too-small one bedroom apartment:
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/...-YORK-NY-10011

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

tall and skinny townhomes waste a lot of space with stairs

Stairs don't take up any more space in a skinny townhome than they do in a house with a larger footprint. As a proportion of the footprint, sure. But something 4 stories tall is always going to have more square footage per acre than something 2 stories tall.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

I know that's a nice building but $1,800/sq ft is insane, the layout sucks and that area isn't that great (Hudson River views are nice, but there's nothing to eat or do west of Greenwich St). And for an apartment that is so clearly designed for a single guy, it's a long walk to a subway.

400 W. 12 is maximum three blocks from the Meatpacking District, so there's definitely a ton of amenities within close proximity.

Sounds like a high price to me, but the Far West Village is really, really expensive. Anything newish is just sky-high pricey. That block has a recent $40 million sale.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ mortgage on that apartment is $6,600/ month. i know it's soho and all but that's insane for 768 s/f.

The one apartment is relatively close, but not within the traditional boundaries of SoHo. Unfortunately, if it were in SoHo proper, it would likely be significantly more expensive.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's also the materials used to build the house, and the resources to maintain, heat, light, and furnish it. Land area plus proximity (driving distances etc.) might be half or 2/3 of the battle.

And has been mentioned these things can also be mitigated. Suffice to say that size is just one of many factors when it comes to sustainability.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

400 W. 12 is maximum three blocks from the Meatpacking District, so there's definitely a ton of amenities within close proximity.

Sounds like a high price to me, but the Far West Village is really, really expensive. Anything newish is just sky-high pricey. That block has a recent $40 million sale.

I'm aware... but I'm also very much over Meatpacking.

Yes you can walk a few blocks east and be at Hudson, which has tons of restaurants, but I'd just live a little further east.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by 10023

I know that's a nice building but $1,800/sq ft is insane, the layout sucks and that area isn't that great (Hudson River views are nice, but there's nothing to eat or do west of Greenwich St). And for an apartment that is so clearly designed for a single guy, it's a long walk to a subway.

Really? It's that hard to walk a few steps from the door of the building to the next block to get some food? Greenwich is only one block away....

Strangely all my favorite neighborhoods in NYC are the far ones along the West Side Hwy. North Tribeca, West Chelsea and West Village. Perhaps for the modern starchitecture.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by 10023

Stairs don't take up any more space in a skinny townhome than they do in a house with a larger footprint. As a proportion of the footprint, sure. But something 4 stories tall is always going to have more square footage per acre than something 2 stories tall.

As a percentage of square footage too. You can spend the same 70 square feet per level on stairs whether your floor plates are 300 square feet or 1,000square feet.