HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 9:22 PM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
A few years ago I sold my 600 sf and bought 900 sf in a slightly nicer building. I'd have bought 1,200 sf I had the money. But 1,700 would be too much. Even if dues and electricity were the same, I don't want to rattle around in a big place. If I have a family at some point it'll be different...but never 1,000 sf per person.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 10:27 PM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

Architecturally speaking though, most of the houses in the suburbs are disgusting pieces of shit that have no idea what they're supposed to be. It's just a combination of the ten most popular residential architectural features in some way, regardless of whether or not they actually work well together.
Something like this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 10:53 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
I live in a large home and I love it. When I met my partner 5 years ago, we started looking for a 4 BR house. We both work from home, so we wanted two bedrooms to use as two home offices, a Master, and a guest. We were looking at numerous in-town Atlanta neighborhoods. Ultimately we found one even larger than we were looking for (5 BR) but it was a great deal because it was in foreclosure. It was built in 2005, and sat vacant until we bought it as the first owners in the summer of 2007.

Even with the collapse of Atlanta home values since then, we are probably still pretty much breaking even on the house (not under water, or if under water, not by much). We're two miles from downtown and 15 minutes from the airport, in a lively, diverse neighborhood. Our place is 3,450 SF.

Some might call it a "McMansion", but it doesn't share many of the traits of a McMansion. It doesn't have a complicated gabled roof system, we have no garage, and it was built by a single owner to his specific design. There are no other similar houses close by, although there are several "McMansions" close by.

Our three dogs love it too.
It's large but no McMansion. McMansions are (a) mass-produced, (b) in almost every instance located on the far outskirts, and (c) very poorly constructed (fiberboard, vinyl, siding, etc.). You got most of the other defining features of one.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 11:20 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
A few years ago I sold my 600 sf and bought 900 sf in a slightly nicer building. I'd have bought 1,200 sf I had the money. But 1,700 would be too much. Even if dues and electricity were the same, I don't want to rattle around in a big place. If I have a family at some point it'll be different...but never 1,000 sf per person.
1200 s/f is perfect (for me at least) for a single person. that gives you a second (or third) bedroom to free up clutter (computer, fitness equipment) from the main area. kinda tacky having a computer area in the dining room and no where to have a sit down meal. i agree about 1700 s/f. my girlfriends townhouse is that size and she's lost in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 11:36 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Bigger is only better when well designed. Actually...if you combine spaces like the kitchen opening right into the living room you can make the home feel larger than it really is without adding more square footage. I couldn't stand an overly huge bedroom, but a large bathroom is certainly nice. The living room / kitchen just needs to be large enough to entertain a crowd no larger than 15.

If I ever get a house or condo, the computer will probably go somewhere near the kitchen.

In short, eliminate the rooms you wouldn't need, and maximize the ones you use a lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 11:37 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
And unlike the past people carry around more crap with them to necessitate extra space.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 11:44 PM
Mr Roboto Mr Roboto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chi 60616
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
So if money was not a concern (either you had so much it didn't matter, or you were offered a free apartment), and you had to choose between an 1,800 square foot 3-bedroom and a 700 square foot one bedroom in the same building, you would choose the 700 square foot one bedroom?

I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a second.
No, I would choose a 1300 SF 2 bedroom in a different building. (I had already said I wouldnt choose a 600 SF apartment).

Believe whatever you want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2012, 11:51 PM
Mr Roboto Mr Roboto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chi 60616
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
There is a big difference between living in a larger space with more room and "no limit to the space they would buy if money wasn't an issue".

That's great if you like living in smaller space...but the fact is that you're a small minority. Certainly not everyone would buy a bigger home if they could, but I'm pretty sure that most people would.
Thats fine, but I dont know if Im in the minority. I think all practical people recognize what they need and dont need and can determine a space that accomodates their lifestyles. Some of us see that large houses get filled with junk that eventually results in garage sales. Some of us prefer not to accumulate junk, dont see the need for it, and also dont like empty rooms either.

If practical and logical people are a small minority, then I guess what you said may be true. I like to think there are more of us than that naturally, but certainly our current economic state is forcing more people to become like that as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:09 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
People do a lot of stupid things.

Lottery winners, high earners, and pro athletes routinely go broke because they spend everything they get. Generally this is purely bad decisions.

Likewise, the average 401(k) investor buys high and sells low. Again, bad decisions.

Buying a big house is similar. They don't think about what it costs to heat the place, or reroof it, or furnish it. They don't think about transportation costs.

If they're living by the mantra of "screw tomorrow, have fun today" it's at least understandable. But many want to plan for tomorrow, and simply don't think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:14 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Roboto View Post
Thats fine, but I dont know if Im in the minority. I think all practical people recognize what they need and dont need and can determine a space that accomodates their lifestyles. Some of us see that large houses get filled with junk that eventually results in garage sales. Some of us prefer not to accumulate junk, dont see the need for it, and also dont like empty rooms either.

If practical and logical people are a small minority, then I guess what you said may be true. I like to think there are more of us than that naturally, but certainly our current economic state is forcing more people to become like that as well.
Once again...just because it's practical and logical FOR YOU doesn't mean that it's true across the board. It's easy to see that you are in a minority due to the large numbers of people living in single family homes with yards in suburban settings, so it's not a question of "if". In most cases, a good 90% (or more) of the population of any given city lives outside of the core...I know that doesn't automatically translate to suburban housing, but it does translate to less urban housing and larger living spaces.

There are many elitists on this site who act as if everyone who doesn't think the way they do is wrong...I am all for urban living and prefer a smaller home with at least enough room for my furniture and clothing, but I realize that the majority people seem to prefer (if they can afford it) larger homes with more space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:26 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Most people don't live in mcmansions either. So the same logic applies in reverse.

Further, many people in mcmansions actively scoff at the idea of an apartment or small house. Though I don't look down on mcmansion residents, I can see that those who do might do so partially in response to that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:30 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
So if money was not a concern (either you had so much it didn't matter, or you were offered a free apartment), and you had to choose between an 1,800 square foot 3-bedroom and a 700 square foot one bedroom in the same building, you would choose the 700 square foot one bedroom?

I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a second.
My bedroom is about 130sqft and I have everything clinging to the walls with an open space in the middle. Personally, I don't need the space. I have no plans to fill it with anything. I'm not the kind of person to collect a large assortment of useless things and put them on display for myself, the exception being maps which simply take up wall space.

I'm confused as to why so many people seem to feel victimized by our personal choice to live in smaller places. I'm sorry?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:41 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
My bedroom is about 130sqft and I have everything clinging to the walls with an open space in the middle. Personally, I don't need the space. I have no plans to fill it with anything. I'm not the kind of person to collect a large assortment of useless things and put them on display for myself, the exception being maps which simply take up wall space.

I'm confused as to why so many people seem to feel victimized by our personal choice to live in smaller places. I'm sorry?
I think it's the other way around...it seems like some people look down on those who choose larger living spaces as if they are doing something wrong. I personally don't have any problem with what people choose for living space or environment - it's totally up to the individual. But some of the comments just in this thread alone seem to demonize any choice that is "illogical" or "unnecessary" in their opinion...and all (or most) of the negative comments I've come across have been from small space people about large space preferences.

Anyway, I would kind of expect that sort if intolerance from suburbanites who are generally more conservative, but I tend to expect a more tolerant way of thinking from urban dwellers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 12:46 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Most people don't live in mcmansions either. So the same logic applies in reverse.

Further, many people in mcmansions actively scoff at the idea of an apartment or small house. Though I don't look down on mcmansion residents, I can see that those who do might do so partially in response to that.
Yes, I believe that many large home dwellers would scoff at the idea of a small living space for themselves, but I don't think that they usually look down on people who do make that choice. The comments made in this thread have been very negative toward ANYONE living in larger spaces, and I don't see why it matters to the people making those comments. Live and let live.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 1:13 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Wastefulness affects all of us. I don't put the individuals down for this, but it's fine to be against the trend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 1:24 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Wastefulness affects all of us. I don't put the individuals down for this, but it's fine to be against the trend.
You must have missed the point I made earlier...it isn't wasteful to live in a large home in everyone's opinion. Your opinion isn't any more correct than another's.

I'm curious though...how does it affect us for someone to choose a larger than necessary living space that he/she can afford?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 1:52 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
I'm curious though...how does it affect us for someone to choose a larger than necessary living space that he/she can afford?
It requires more resources to support it. More energy needed to power and heat those larger homes have, through the principles of supply and demand, brought the cost of energy up significantly. The high demand for cars to commute to and from far flung suburbs has made gas more expensive. The massive appetites of suburban families has made food more expensive. Urban sprawl requires services which means costly upgrades to existing infrastructure.

The individual might be able to afford the house, but society, as a whole, can't. Almost all of my city's debt is from upgrading its water filtration plant so that it has the power to water our far-flung suburbs. Even if all of the tax revenue from those subdivisions was put toward paying down that debt, it would take over 20 years to actually do so, and they would have to receive all other services free in the mean time. This decade, we're spending close to 50 million dollars on two suburban roads to accommodate more subdivisions full of 2,000sqft+ houses. The area has capacity for about 3,500 houses. Half that many exist now. The cost, divided among those properties, is $14,300. Their average taxes are about $2,500 a year. You can argue that other people benefit from the road, but it didn't even exist until we started building houses out there in the late 1980s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:03 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
It requires more resources to support it. More energy needed to power and heat those larger homes have, through the principles of supply and demand, brought the cost of energy up significantly. The high demand for cars to commute to and from far flung suburbs has made gas more expensive. The massive appetites of suburban families has made food more expensive. Urban sprawl requires services which means costly upgrades to existing infrastructure.

The individual might be able to afford the house, but society, as a whole, can't. Almost all of my city's debt is from upgrading its water filtration plant so that it has the power to water our far-flung suburbs. Even if all of the tax revenue from those subdivisions was put toward paying down that debt, it would take over 20 years to actually do so, and they would have to receive all other services free in the mean time. This decade, we're spending close to 50 million dollars on two suburban roads to accommodate more subdivisions full of 2,000sqft+ houses. The area has capacity for about 3,500 houses. Half that many exist now. The cost, divided among those properties, is $14,300. Their average taxes are about $2,500 a year. You can argue that other people benefit from the road, but it didn't even exist until we started building houses out there in the late 1980s.
Not buying any of that...sprawl isn't all about large homes. Most of the large surburban homes people are buying are not built on previously undeveloped land in the exurbs. You are describing an extreme circumstance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:13 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
How old are you?

I ask because once you get a little older, you'll appreciate having a place that's at least comfortable to hang out in. You and your wife won't always want to be right on top of each other (so to speak). I like to cook, and the tiny kitchen in my Manhattan apartment just doesn't cut it. You'll want to host friends more often, not that you won't go out as well. And with kids... well there better be somewhere for them to be and not be underfoot.

I don't actually think 2,000 square feet or so is more than I'd want with a couple of kids. But if the average is ~2,500 square feet, then there must be a lot of houses quite a bit larger than that. Remember that there are quite a lot of city lofts that are 2k+ square feet.
I am 31 years old and when my father was my exact age he was living in this exact same house with both of his parents. Honestly four to five people could live in my house quite comfortably, the only negative thing would be only one bathroom which if you had enough money you could just built a second one in the semi-finished basement. My house was built in 1963 and was what the average family expected at the time. The main living floor is 1,053 square feet and includes three bedrooms each with closets (the master has a small walk in closet), a bathroom, a living room, a kitchen and a small dining area. Old houses were built with rather efficient space usage, much of how comfortable you feel in a space actually depends on how a space is designed and not square footage alone.

I think they build inefficient designs on purpose to get people to buy more space, that is why we have things like 900 square foot one bedrooms spaces with barely a kitchen, also it is in large part because people want huge kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms that there just isn't room for more rooms. Also people expect every room to be chambers of isolation with entertainment centers when in olden days a bedroom was for sleeping, a bathroom was for taking a shit and bathing, not a jacussi party. The idea of efficient design isn't just some elitist yuppy ideal, just look at houses built 50 years ago and it was the norm.

Also this has nothing to do with envy, if I visit someone with a 3,000 square foot highrise penthouse or gold coast townhouse I am impressed and would buy it if I could. I however not impressed when Joe Blow shows me his 3,000 square foot place in Naperville, I am actually more impressed by modest bungalows like mine in the city. The point is that I will not sacrifice location for extra space and many middle class people who want space in the suburbs are just mindless conformists following trends, not people with independent thought processes making an individualistic preference for themselves, many of these people have not emotionally matured much beyond middle and high school and still do things based on peer pressure and group think. Theoretically someone can prefer suburban lifestyle and space of their own volition and I am sure there are some but considering society pushes the super size lifestyle so much it is much easier to be individualistic and choose smaller spaces.

Last edited by Chicago103; Feb 28, 2012 at 2:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:15 AM
philvia's Avatar
philvia philvia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
It's not ridiculous if that's what an individual chooses to have. People have different needs and desires and make choices based on what they can afford. You have no reason to speak about what is right for someone else. If you like living in a small space then that's fine - for you. The fact is that most people enjoy some space, hence the popularity of suburbs and larger homes.

it's perfectly ridiculous. just because you can afford a larger house doesn't mean you should buy it - that's no excuse. my point was that people buy these large houses out of vanity and not purpose.

if you make a purchase decision solely on the fact that a house has 4 bedrooms rather than the 3 that you need, that is ridiculous. yes people have choices, but that doesn't mean they're right or that they demand respect.

the worst offenders are the "guest rooms" and the "home office". every suburbanite wants a guest room for that yearly visit from the inlaws and every suburbanite wants a dedicated office to store their 1.4 pound laptop - and before you lose your mind, people who have frequent guests and people who actually work from home are perfectly fine requiring dedicated spaces, but the MAJORITY of people need neither. it's all vanity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.