When size matters: housing (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:53 am

I just came across this interesting tidbit in the LA Times:

Fed up with seeing outsize houses popping up in open spaces or overwhelming the scale of established neighborhoods, cities and counties across the United States are declaring war on McMansions. Famously eco-friendly Boulder County, Colo., is considering forcing people in some rural areas to pay extra to build homes bigger than 3,000 square feet. Atlantic Beach, Fla., has restricted home size to half the square footage of lots, and the Los Angeles City Council is due to consider a similar measure.

In Minneapolis, reining in big homes was the top issue Betsy Hodges heard about when door-knocking in her successful campaign for City Council in 2005; last month she and the rest of the council unanimously passed a law restricting home size to half the square footage of each lot...

Of course, it's not just a matter of square footage in a house. Several famous mansions are open to the public as tourist attractions, mostly in the Virginia and North Carolina areas. They were attached to enough property to form county-sized parks--though in at least some cases, that has been sold. In others, it hasn't. And I have to admit that while a mansion-sized house might be justifiable in terms of ceremonial functionality for a university president, a CEO, a head of government, there doesn't appear to me any justification for the ownership of so much pristine forest and park land, which could otherwise be turned over to national authorities for public use and administration. Such sequestering of land is obscene, IMO, especially in states or areas where public land is next to impossible to find.

In any case: how large in square footage is your home? Do you rent, or own? Do you have a private garden, or lot, and how large? What do you think is too large for a house size, or a lot size? And note, stay on topic, please.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:38 am

My apartment is 158 square meters. (I'm sorry, I don't know what that is in feet) It is a little over sized for just me and my son since my wife travels 80% of the year, but the general layout is such that it seems smaller. Lots of nooks and crannies, small/large staircases, supporting beams, weird angles etc. As we live at the top of the building, I've also built a rooftop winter garden with a removable glass ceiling where I grow plants and spices. The rest of the place is pretty dark due to it being an old building (1889) so that's a nice place to be during the long, dark winter months. I also tend to clutter up the place a lot with constant additions of new bookshelves (*sigh*), closets, small fireplaces and curios, so the "living" area is actually much smaller. It all depends on the people living there, IMHO. The sickest thing I know is MTV Cribs, where the noveau riche show off the tasteless marble barns they have bought on downpayment and all the "must have" clutter they try to fill it up with.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:52 pm

I don't quite get it? Buy a 6k sqft property and you can still build your eco-unfriendly 3k home, right?

I rent an awesome attic appartment, I think it's about 40 sq meters, in the centre of an old city and I have no garden. And I'm perfectly happy with it.

I don't think there should be laws on house sizes, but there should be laws on energy-efficiency (namely insulation).

Personally, I think a house becomes no more than a collection of impressive rooms when it's too big, but it becomes a home when it's sized for the human scale. So houses can definitely be too big, which will negatively affect the experience of the building being a "home", and that is a pity, especially when you're paying millions for it, like most "buildings" you see in MTV cribs.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:48 pm

My apartment is 158 square meters. (I'm sorry, I don't know what that is in feet)

It is approximately 1,700 sq feet. A very good size for a flat.
-----
There is a zoning ordinance that requires a house to be a certain size in a certain neighborhood. For example, in my subdivision, a house cannot be less than 2,200 sq feet.

Our comfortable 2-story house is 2,900 sq. feet (270 sq meters)... Almost obscene...

Our basement is unfinished yet; it will eventually add 1,500 sq footage (140 sq m), I suppose. We use a part of the basement as a gym now.
We also have a three-car garage (additional unfriendly space, I am afraid). Our irregular lot is at least three times bigger than our house. It used to be a flat piece of cornfield which we transformed into a beautiful garden full of trees (I planted 17 trees), flowering shrubs, roses and perennials -- a plentiful food supply for rabbits and Japanese beetles. We also installed a small pond with a waterfall, next to the deck and the patio.
I guess it is more than enough for two people to feel cozy...

AmpaSand · Post by **AmpaSand** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:11 pm

We have a rather large house (900sm property don't know how big the house is) but in NZ people just don't build houses with useless rooms it's just not done.

Karembeu · Post by **Karembeu** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:39 pm

Actually me and my family just moved to an alright size house from a big crummy apartment. Been living in the new house for almost a month now.

Size of the house is 180 square m with a garage that is 48 square m. Size of the lot is 900 square m. The size of the old apartment was 149 square m.

The houseprices are really ok in most parts of Sweden, payed around 690 000 swedish "kronor" for our house which I guess is the equivalent of $100 000.

There's a house in the neighbour village that's 450 square m with a garden of 4900 square m going for just under $100 000. And it really seems to be in good shape too...

Monolith · Post by **Monolith** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:41 am

I rent a one room apartment - 19 sqm. Kitchen, living and dining room all in one. Thank god the bathroom is seperated. It's just me living here and it's all I need (I'm a student after all). I don't have a garden. I have a large park with a lake about 300 meters down the road though, and a balcony, which has about half the size of a washing machine. Good enough to stretch out my legs

And I don't think there is a "too large" for either house or lot size. If somebody needs a garden of the size of two football fields, well, that's his personal decision and as long as he can afford it, I'm fine with it. Not my business.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:49 am

Monolith wrote: And I don't think there is a "too large" for either house or lot size. If somebody needs a garden of the size of two football fields, well, that's his personal decision and as long as he can afford it, I'm fine with it. Not my business.

I feel that way too. I guess I just have a hard time feeling righteous indignation at rich people spending money on things I can't.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:38 am

Vicsun wrote:I feel that way too. I guess I just have a hard time feeling righteous indignation at rich people spending money on things I can't.

And that makes perfect sense, because I don't know anybody who's foolish enough to dislike this kind of land purchasing and house building on the basis of jealousy. The loss of land resources is another matter.

If I hadn't lived for a while (9 years) in New Jersey, so very densely populated that almost the only things called parks are postage stamp-sized baseball fields, I might agree with you. But there is a real dearth of greenery in much of the state, and an absence of quiet ruralia where you can just kick by and enjoy. Those lands still remain, but they're private property. Mind, I don't blame the owners. I blame the mendacity of the politicians and the real estate agents.

Much the same can be said of the area of the Outer Banks in the northeastern peninsula of North Carolina, which used to be so pristine, despite the presence of a large number of rental houses, that small herds of wild horses wandered anywhere, and were depicted proudly on teeshirts.

No longer. The building frenzy has gotten so bad that there's practically no spot of land adjacent to the narrow but long stretch of road either sold for very expensive commercial or real estate, and the horses have fled. So has the reason many people came there, originally, for vacation.

So to use my own personal example, while I would have no problem with somebody building a 4000 sq ft home on 20 acres in Wyoming, I do have a problem with it occurring in very populated areas that lack natural woodlands or park terrain except for that which has been sold for homes to the hyper-wealthy.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:50 am

Moonbiter wrote:My apartment is 158 square meters. (I'm sorry, I don't know what that is in feet) It is a little over sized for just me and my son since my wife travels 80% of the year

Heh, I think it's your Scandinavian socialization that makes you feel your apartment is oversized

I felt the same way when I and Silur moved in to our 133 sqm flat, but now we have filled it with a tenant and our daugther, so now it feels just right. I am sure that it will feel quite undersized as soon as the daugther becomes more mobile

rmemmett84 · Post by **rmemmett84** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:55 pm

[quote="fable"]
that small herds of wild horses wandered anywhere, and were depicted proudly on teeshirts.

No longer. The building frenzy has gotten so bad that there's practically no spot of land adjacent to the narrow but long stretch of road either sold for very expensive commercial or real estate, and the horses have fled. So has the reason many people came there, originally, for vacation.

Funny I have friends that just came back from the outer banks a month ago and they said the horses were all over the beach. In fact there were so many of them they were a little frightened. Speaking as someone who sells building materials to professional homebuilders I say the bigger the better. I gotta make a living too. I just sold a house to a doctor, her husband and 2 children that was close to 6000sf. Is it more space than they could ever use...heck yes. Do I think they have more money than brains...also heck yes. Would I spend $14000 for columns for the front of my house...heck no. It was however a nice commission.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:06 pm

rmemmett84 wrote:
fable wrote: Funny I have friends that just came back from the outer banks a month ago and they said the horses were all over the beach. In fact there were so many of them they were a little frightened.

That would be very strange, since the horses only ventured out, even when the area around Duck or Corolla were relatively uninhabited, in the off-season. Certainly not mid-season, like now. Nor did they usually go to the beach, but wandered around the houses, dining in part on plants, and leaving evidence of their culinary enjoyment behind.

We've been there 7 times. In the last 3, they haven't shown up, and we've talked to several homeowners and merchants who said the small herds had moved further inland to avoid the influx of more houses and people.

Where did your friends stay--what town was nearby? Were they on one of the very few private beaches at the time, or the many public ones?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:55 pm

Well currently we are living in a condo that is 1450 sq. feet.. That would be two adults, our son and two cats. It actually feels fairly big.

But we are moving... I'm not sure to what yet. Initially we will rent again, but we hope to put a Panabode (kit log home) on a piece of land when possible.
Should we do that, it would be about 2000 sq. feet... with two stories. Hopefully that would be enough to prevent the SO and I from killing one another...

rmemmett84 · Post by **rmemmett84** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:20 pm

fable wrote:
rmemmett84 wrote: Where did your friends stay--what town was nearby? Were they on one of the very few private beaches at the time, or the many public ones?

I'm actually not sure of the name. I've never been so am not familiar with the names. They did say it was very remote and required about a 5 mile drive off-road up the beach to get to the house they rented.

Ivan Cavallazzi · Post by **Ivan Cavallazzi** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:38 pm

Hi all... long time >.<.
I was lurking for some info... and decided to visit you ppl^^

About the topic, IMO the private x public is definitelly messed nowadays.
And I totally agree with Fable on his critics to the way people handle and see private rights(rights over things).

I ll leave here some insights.

Right of property is in its origins a kind of right that is "oposed to all"(oponível à todos).
This means that property is a negative right. This way: If I own a Pencil, this means i ll express my property right against all others... as they cannot have or own that pencil, cause it is mine.
(obs.: This negative and positive is not a good/bad reference... take GB forum rules as example: You cannot, you cannot, you cannot... it is a negative system too)

This above seems like a semanthycs bull****, but is not. It is deeper... it is a perspective bull**** =P. Heheh

In a social perspective, property rights is negative/oposed. In self perspective, property rights is positive/permisive.

Obviously, i am not against property and so. We live like this since the bourgeois rev. But, the real problem is that in the last five or six decades all about property became insane, nonsense.
To the point that it doenst even need purpose. It became the purpose.
And then, my critic is exactly direct to this insanity of property(not the property itself).

Another insight is inspired on my country Constitution.
Year 1988.
One year before Berlin wall colapse. So, it is somehow inspired both on liberal line and socialist´s.
It is a very rich and beautiful act.
It says, that all property must be aware to its social utility.
This means the freedom of private property is limited to its social utility.
And even if this constitutional statement is more of a dream than a social reality(as Brazil is one of the most cruel wealth distribution countries), i really am an enthusiast of the statement(claimed sometimes in our rights).
This way: I don´t really care about the size and dimension of a private mansion, territory, farm or any other property(even money); ...as long as it is a museum, or factory that employ ppl, or a garden/park open to the public, or an area of bio-preservation, or anything else that have a social relevance and utility.
Something and its purpose...
To say that "I have this land cause i bought it, and that is enough" is not property rights... is sickness.

Awnsering the question i live in 90m2(sorry for the metrical sys.) apartment.
Me, my wife and Sophia(the cat =P).

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:46 am

In certain cases one family can own a whole country, such as the Wallenbergs do Sweden. But they are kind enough to let us stay and work in their factories, so long as we abide by household rules, so I suppose we are better off than the horses.

For our own use--very much negative to everyone else, thank you!--we have but 32 sq metres (ca 350 sq feet), that is for me, wife, and two guinea pigs. I suppose we could have had more, but we prefer travelling.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: There is a zoning ordinance that requires a house to be a certain size in a certain neighborhood. For example, in my subdivision, a house cannot be less than 2,200 sq feet.

What do you mean, a house cannot be less than that size?

Edit: Do we have anyone from Hong Kong here? I saw on a documentary that some people there rent small boxes in a kennel-like facility. Does anyone know if that is true, and if so, how common it is?

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 pm

Naffnuff wrote: What do you mean, a house cannot be less than that size?

That is exactly what I meant. That is how consistency of a neighborhood is maintained. Usually, a certain future residential area (a piece of land owned by a realtor/land developer) is cut into similarly sized lots and put up for sale. The city bureaucrats issue a very particular Covenant that is supposed to cover everything you may (or may not) build on those lots. It tells the prospective homeowners that their future dream home must be within certain parameters (specified separately for one-story and two-story houses), must have no less (and no more) than so-many-car attached (God forbid detached) garage, must have, for example, a brick facade, a full basement etc. The architecturally acceptable design must be submitted for approval, before you can start digging. Eventually, all houses in this particular neighborhood would end up in a certain predictable price range.
Actually, all these restrictions are beneficial. That means if people decide to make a major investment and purchase/build a house, they can do it without running a risk that somebody else would decide to construct a tree house next to their dream home, causing it to lose its market value.

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:01 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:That is exactly what I meant. That is how consistency of a neighborhood is maintained. Usually, a certain future residential area (a piece of land owned by a realtor/land developer) is cut into similarly sized lots and put up for sale. The city bureaucrats issue a very particular Covenant that is supposed to cover everything you may (or may not) build on those lots. It tells the prospective homeowners that their future dream home must be within certain parameters (specified separately for one-story and two-story houses), must have no less (and no more) than so-many-car attached (God forbid detached) garage, must have, for example, a brick facade, a full basement etc. The architecturally acceptable design must be submitted for approval, before you can start digging. Eventually, all houses in this particular neighborhood would end up in a certain predictable price range.
Actually, all these restrictions are beneficial. That means if people decide to make a major investment and purchase/build a house, they can do it without running a risk that somebody else would decide to construct a tree house next to their dream home, causing it to lose its market value.

Hm, very interesting. It may well be that we have similar rules in Sweden, just that I have yet to have the privilege of owning my own house.

I must strongly protest against your attack on tree houses, though! I happen to find them very charming!

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:42 pm

I must strongly protest against your attack on tree houses, though! I happen to find them very charming!

OK, let it be a chicken house then.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:55 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:OK, let it be a chicken house then.

Boneless? And in a nice curry sauce?

Our house is about 2500 sq ft, with about 800 in a full, unfinished basement. It suits our needs, as well as containing all the piles of paraphenalia that you accumulate as you go through life without the regular benefits of Zen. It's relatively airy and bright, and the neighbors wave at us. This in itself is a significant improvement over New Jersey.

Most new houses I've seen in several states are generally similar in size and features, though prices vary widely according to market. Older houses over the last 60 years or so were smaller. Far large, roomy houses, you really have to go back to the turn of the 20th century to find the like. And for apartments, to anything before WWI.