Houses Getting Bigger, Not Smaller (Commentary With Stats)

[JManc]

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.

i agree and homes of any size can be built in modest sized lots in neighborhoods platted for maximum land use. there is an area near me with these 'mcmansions' on smallish lots...about 20 feet between them and i fail to see the problem with them. their big and garish but that's their choice.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Really?

I prefer the Ferris Bueller aesthetic of a large lot, mature tree cover, and modest modernist bungalow in an area served by public transit/local main street vs some 80X180 ft lot car dependent hellhole in on the fringe of Markham.

...and that is your preference and not up to anyone else.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by vid

Answer the question. What was the land where most suburban houses are being built used for if it is not previously undeveloped?

I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself...you don't need my help.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Wow...some of you just don't get it do you?

Take that mess to an Occupy shanty town!

I think maybe you're the one who doesn't get it.
Take your mess to the nearest Tea Party gathering.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Gresto

I think maybe you're the one who doesn't get it.
Take your mess to the nearest Tea Party gathering.

You're funny. I'm very liberal, but not all the way to the left extreme and certainly not in full blind support of Occupy. Tea Party? Nuh-uh...I don't think they allow gay men in their ranks.

Sweet dreams sexy, it's past my bedtime.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Who are "people like me"? People who are tolerant and open-minded and don't try to impose their views on others...that's who I am. Who are you? The tone of yours and some other posts who would demonize people for their individual needs and preferences - those are more in line with conservative views.

I am only guessing that you are confusing me with a conservative for some reason. It's a little confusing seeing as how you are the one with intolerant viewpoint - not me. I am very much a liberal.

Your anti-environmental views are right wing by our standards, even statewide.

[vid]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

You seem like a smart enough dude, so I'm confident you can figure it all out. And I would appreciate if you wouldn't use foul language and accuse me of being full of such things.

I already said I was finished arguing about rights and preferences of others, which was the extent of our disagreement. Since it isn't about sprawl, I will not entertain further questions on that topic. Thanks.

You're no longer answering our questions or refuting our claims so I will make the assumption that you've found yourself in a spot I've found myself in many times before: You've lost the argument. You're pulling out straw men to make yourself look better but it just makes you look worse.

I just wanted to know what you think those houses are being built on and you won't tell me. What other conclusion could I come to?

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by mhays

Your anti-environmental views are right wing by our standards, even statewide.

You're funny too...I'm far from anti-environmental. Being tolerant of others views does not equal anti-anything. Goodnight to you too darling.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

You're funny. I'm the liberal one here.

Your comments on this topic reveal a lack of comprehension and awareness indicative of a Tea Party troglodyte.

Sweet dreams sexy, it's past my bedtime.

Righto, chief. Hope you finished your homework.

[mhays]

You have a gap in your ethics. Not my problem. But don't expect sympathy.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by vid

You're no longer answering our questions or refuting our claims so I will make the assumption that you've found yourself in a spot I've found myself in many times before: You've lost the argument. You're pulling out straw men to make yourself look better but it just makes you look worse.

I just wanted to know what you think those houses are being built on and you won't tell me. What other conclusion could I come to?

What I've lost is my patience for your rude comments.

Oh I'm sorry I left you out. Good night to you too baby.

[vid]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

You're funny too...I'm far from anti-environmental.

You're far from being pro-environmental. Large houses consume more natural resources which makes them less environmental. It's basic math.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Your comments on this topic reveal a lack of comprehension and awareness indicative of a Tea Party troglodyte.

Righto, chief. Hope you finished your homework.

I assign homework, I don't do it.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by mhays

You have a gap in your ethics. Not my problem. But don't expect sympathy.

It's not a problem for me because a gap doesn't exist here. If you think I'm looking for sympathy you are sadly mistaken.

Last comment for tonight, and that isn't an indication that I've "lost" an argument (as Vid seems to think). See you boys later.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by vid

You're far from being pro-environmental. Large houses consume more natural resources which makes them less environmental. It's basic math.

i think in his view, not having someone tell you what kind of house you can or cannot have trumps the environmental issue. yes, big houses suck more energy but the owners pay back in higher taxes and utility bills not too mention these huge houses represent a small fraction of housing stock across the country.

[mhays]

He doesn't appear to care about the environmental side. I'm actually not an absolutist even if I sound like one. We all use stuff, but some attempt at moderation is pretty basic.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JManc

i think in his view, not having someone tell you what kind of house you can or cannot have trumps the environmental issue. yes, big houses suck more energy but the owners pay back in higher taxes and utility bills not too mention these huge houses represent a small fraction of housing stock across the country.

To add further to that, I believe we should stop subsidizing pollution and let people decide then. Forcing people to adhere to something like a way of life is inherently wrong and short sighted.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by mhays

Another thing to love about the west coast...unlike the South, people like you don't win statewide elections here.

Geeze stereotypical west coast snobbery. You're better than that.

[brickell]

Geezy. Winter must be getting bad up there. Seems there's a lot of negativity going around SSP lately.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by vid

You're far from being pro-environmental. Large houses consume more natural resources which makes them less environmental. It's basic math.

All things being equal the larger space will use more resources but not all things are equal when comparing living sizes. I think the amount of space is important but the type of construction is more important. In Philadelphia the new trend is to build zero impact energy housing. This new construction tends to be bigger then the existing housing. Does this make it worse then the housing it is replacing because they contain more sf?

I realize that in order to get an average of 2500 sf many houses need to be bigger then that but I think equating size of the dwelling to sprawl is a logical step but is something I caution against. Look at One 57 that is being built in NYC. The average size of those condo units are massive and far exceed the 2,500 sf that is the average size of a new single family dwelling in the US yet everyone on this site seems to be very supportive of the project on here. I agree that a lot of new development is not the most environmentally friendly but I do not think it is productive to automatically equate larger housing to sprawl.

Naturally as land prices rise for a developer to make money on new construction one of two things has to happen. The price per sf needs to increase at the same rate that land appreciates or the size of the house needs to increase to make up for the rise in land value. This means that new construction will either require more expensive housing for the same size dwelling compared to prior construction or new housing is going to get bigger. The developers have found it easier to sell a larger house as opposed to selling more expensive houses at the same size.