Smaller, More Efficient Homes On The Horizon

15 years ago

I'm sitting here looking at the Dow futures, reading through this morning's news, & feeling reflective.

I remember responding to a thread here 18-20 months ago that my DH had attended a meeting where homebuilders from across the country spoke of shifting their design staff to smaller & much more efficient homes noting they were meeting with yacht builders for ideas on efficiency & storage solutions. Mostly, I was "poo poo'd" & accused of just being anti-McMansion. DH listened to what those builders were saying & began the process of adjusting the bank's strategic planning to reflect smaller loans.

As the housing boom has collapsed that meeting looks almost prophetic. When any boom busts...it's never led out by the same product that led to the collapse. A bust of any magnitude results in a sea change in people's attitude reflected in their desire for significant change. Combined with a rising 'green movement' (which I also predicted & was even more "poo poo'd" for) people are going to be clammering for smaller & more efficient housing.

McMansions are going to be white elephants for the foreseeable future, IMO. Sure, there will always be demand, at some level, for a large home. Telecommunting will keep a few properly designed large homes viable for a while; but, the days of people aspiring to & builders responding with subdivision after subdivision of gated, 4,000-6,000 s.f. homes filled with non-renewable resources are now a part of our history not our future.

My grandkids will be looking at purchasing their first homes in about ten years. IMO, as they drive around looking at choosing a neighborhood they'll point to the huge aging houses & mutter "Oh man, look at all these decaying homes. Some developer needs to come in here & condo these things into multi-family housing!"

Even as the market recovers these McMansions won't command the prices of 2004-2006. The next generation of home buyers will want a different product. They'll become the looming symbols of excess that charcterizes this financial collapse. It will take many decades for them to attain "vintage" appeal that some up & coming young couple will want to restore to its original condition in an affort to 'preserve heritage'. :(

I wonder what will happen to those dozen, or so, that sit empty & unsold in my area? Will they ever sell with those soaring ceilings that require heat, the kitchens that necessitate rollar skates to function efficiently, & endless slow to regenerate hardwood flooring? Or, will they continue to sit deteriorating in our harsh weather? There has been massive wealth destruction in the past couple months. I imagine even old New England money has been hit hard...I feel sorry for the elderly couple who's home we toured spring '07 with the incredible view of LIS. They'd already moved to their new, even larger home & felt this home would sell within days. It's still sitting there empty. We drove by a few weeks ago & the roof has lost some shingles from when H. Hanna blew thru in early September. It came on the market for $1.595M spring '07. It's now listed with the same agent at $1.395M. I predict it will sell for around $800K...and that only because of the view.

Some of these houses were built with enough quality they will withstand the passage of time & the changing consumer environment graciously & in many years become like the 1920s mansions. Sadly, those built with true jaw-dropping quality are few in number. Most are just semi-custom large boxes constructed without the true design, style, & level of workmanship to raise them to that level. Someday, our grandkids will be touring a few & gawking in wonder at the display of easy money characterizing this past decade in much the way we now tour Newport's Golden Age mansions. What? Maybe one in a thousand? What will become of the rest? It's going to take the passage of centuries for them to blend into the New England landscape full of large colonial homes. Many were built by people with adequate resources to afford the finished product & few McMansions went to subprime borrowers but...people are visual. So, for now, they have become the tangible poster child for the largest financial collapse since the Great Depression.

Excerpt:

"The homes, while smaller, feature large open spaces, a so-called great room often linking the living room and dining room area that might have previously been walled off. The homes also have a two-car garage standard and storage space.

"The square footage isn't the focus, it's really the utility and efficiency and flexibility of the home that is our focus," Ruffner said. "You could have a three-bedroom, 2,500 square-foot single-story home and all you had was wide hallways and bigger rooms. It wasn't really giving (buyers) the utility."

/tricia

Here is a link that might be useful: Builders Shift to Smaller Houses

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (30)

triciae
Original Author
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"...it's hard to fix something that keeps breaking."

/tricia

Here is a link that might be useful: Why The Housing Crisis Is Hard To Fix
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Not to sound pompous, but having lived in a 2200 sf home before this one, i can honestly say i would never go back to that small in the near future..3 children 2 dogs, and frequent guests make my current home of 4000+ sf exactly what we need now...
and as i have posted many times, 2200 sf was too much when my parents visited when we bought that home...They thought their 1700 sf Cape Cod was perfect..BUT, my grandparents thought my parents home was WAY too large, and loved their 1200 sf row home in NYC...all perception, and generational
Related Discussions
When energy efficient options on a build cost so much more.
Q
Comments (25)
Our PV system cost us $8k out of pocket to install, provided $904 worth of electricity in the last year, and I just cashed a check on our first year of SREC sales of $1600. I don't expect the SREC numbers to stay anywhere near that high, but thats an ROI that blows away any other investment I have made. It should continue to crank out that power for the next 20-30 years. You may or may not agree with the public policy aspect of the subsidies provided, but as a homeowner you can't beat it with a stick. Last summer we ran up a $2200 bill for water, keeping a relatively small lawn alive (not something I would have done had I known!). If I had any intention of using that level of water a $10k investment to recycle would probably make a lot of sense. Not to me though; the lawn is on its own! We insulated and sealed the heck out of our place. Keeping the old house at 45 degrees for the winter before we began remodeling cost $1600 in oil. After doubling the size of the house and turning the thermostat up to 68 our gas bill was under $800 for the winter, with a bunch of sealing yet to complete. The payback will be much longer, but we also get the benefit of a very comfortable space, without the drafts int he old house. The beauty of insulation is that it should continue to provide that benefit for the next century plus, with no additional investment over that period. (Plenty of 2-300+ year old houses in the neighborhood, chances are good the house will survive). I expect my payback (taking opportunity cost into account) to be long, real returns of a few percent a year, with my heirs perhaps getting a better price for a quiet, well insulated house. I don't regret paying it forward in this way-- I appreciate the way our ancestors built with quality, and have a lot of satisfaction from creating a property that will be enjoyed for generations to come.
...See More
advice on old home / more efficient h/c
Q
Comments (6)
Air sealing is your fastest savings. You might consider hiring some one to blower door test your house and make recomendations about where & how to seal the leakage. Some companies will also test the ductwork. fix the house leakage, repair the duct leakage and see if utility cost does not go down. You could prolly find a lot of the leakage sites yourself if you know what to look for. (wish I knew how to put pics in my reply!) Spiders build webs were air moves. Look in cabinets by plumbing penetrations, inside closets, ceiling moldings, light fixtures. Most areas inside your house are best sealed with caulk which will expand and contract with the house. Open your return air..do you see exposed 2xs'? If you have a heating system closet look around the door frame..dust? can you shine a flashlight and see the return air plenum? do you see dirty insulation in the r/a? Is the platform sealed to the walls & to the door when it closes? If you really want to do some homework..go in your attic. Look for spiderwebs and dirty insulation. where there is a gap or a hole or even an open plumbing wall the insulation will be dirty around the opening. This is where the house sucks dirty insulated laded air into your house. Are the supply and return plenums well sealed to the heating system? Duct tapes fail, foil tapes don't adhere well..these are areas to be mastic sealed. take a look at the ductwork..again..dirty insulation? move the insulation back at the duct to duct collar connection at the supply plenum. Is it mastic sealed? are there areas of the living space open to the attic? over shower units, around chimney? you should have a good air barrier first, then a good insulation barrier. btw, where are you located? best of luck.
...See More
Are smaller homes really the new trend?
Q
Comments (44)
Oh my! I apologize for creating a stir. My intention was not to bash those that live in larger than average size homes. I think that we can all agree that some people just dont need as much space as others but itÂs not right for those people to discount other peopleÂs lifestyles. However living in a larger, less efficient home definitely has a negative impact on our environment and the new building trend is definitely leaning towards sustainability. This should be acknowledged and accepted by all. The purpose of the posting was to see whether or not 1,100 sq ft for a two bedroom unit is acceptable for most people. I think more accurately, my posting should be asking if 750 sq ft for a one bedroom loft is acceptable, as well as 350 sq ft for a studio. And yes, I realize that in Honolulu everything is much smaller. That was another purpose of my posting, to see if other parts of the mainland US are starting to shift towards smaller more efficient home design, something that Honolulu has been doing since the beginning of time. Condos and single family homes did increase in size since 1940. For example, a two bedroom condo or duplex in 1940 had an average size of about 500 sq ft. Today, the average size is about 850 sq ft. Single family homes increased from an average 3 bedroom home of about 1000 sq ft in 1940 to about 1700 sq ft today. So the increase is not quite as dramatic as that in the US mainland. We are seeing a slight shift in home size in todayÂs new buildings but I donÂt think itÂs as dramatic from what IÂve seen in the US mainland. But thatÂs probably because we didnÂt experience a "size run-up" like the mainland did. And for the record, I wanted to copy and paste a follow up I created on another category on the GardenWeb forums about a week ago. It describes how the 3 levels were actually split up to accommodate multi-person living. You will see that my design was not intended for ONE person , ONE couple, or ONE family to live on all three floors. The design is such that the home can be shared by extended family (for example grandma on the fourth floor, children on the second and third). But they have their own kitchens, bathroom and living area. I completely agree that a 1,100 sq ft home spread across three floors makes no sense. But if you NEVER had to access the spiral stair case at all, would it still be an issue? Hopefully the follow up I created below will lead to clarification. Original post follows (sorry, itÂs quite long)Â The units are being built and sold OR rented (I may end up renting the property instead of selling) as "hybrids". Meaning that the unit originally built as a 2 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath can be converted into a one bedroom loft AND separate studio with completely separate living spaces. Let me explain how this works and then maybe the elevator concept will make more sense. Imagine 5 units in a single row configuration, just like a typical townhouse layout in San Francisco for example. Each unit is tall and skinny (3 stories of living space, garage at basement) and butt up to each other. From the outside you will see units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in a row from left to right with shared common walls. Each unit has an identical floor plan that consists of: First floor is a parking garage Second floor consists of a kitchen, living area and powder room Third floor consists of a one bedroom loft (you can see down to the living room below) and full bath. Fourth floor consists of a one bedroom, full bath and wet bar (essentially a full kitchen without a full size range). There are two staircases Â one staircase is an average size if maybe on the smaller size spiral staircase that runs from the parking garage level to the top floor (fourth). There is access via the spiral staircase by door at the parking level, as well as a door at the second floor entry (kitchen and living) and another door at the fourth floor (one bedroom, full bath and wet bar). The spiral staircase, however, bypasses the third floor (it spirals past the third floor but does not allow access) and therefore does not allow entry to the third floor (one bedroom full bath loft). This is where the second SEPARATE staircase comes in which allows access from the kitchen/living area to the loft bedroom above (access from the second floor to the third floor). This second staircase is on the opposite side of the condo. If you wanted to get to the fourth floor from the living/kitchen area you would have to take the spiral staircase and bypass the second floor bedroom loft. The spiral staircase is essentially converted to a common area if the units were split up. If kept as a two bedroom condo, the spiral staircase is a private stairway much like any stairway in a house. The elevator would be of three-stop design. It would start at the parking level (first stop), then stop at the second floor (second stop) and the last stop would be at the fourth floor (third stop). Like the spiral staircase, the elevator would bypass the third floor altogether. Again, the third floor is ONLY accessible by the separate staircase (non-spiral) on the opposite side of the condo that is accessible from the living area (second floor). Confused yet? I apologize if you are. IÂm trying my best to outline my design via words. So the 4-story property can essentially be split into two separate living spaces Â a one bedroom loft and studio. The elevator would allow easy access to the studio unit (if converted to two separate units) and I felt it was necessary. Who wants to walk up 4 stories to get into their unit? I figured that if the property was converted into two units, the resident of the studio would always use the elevator to access his/her unit, while the resident occupying the one bedroom loft would simply traverse the spiral staircase one floor to get to his/her unit. He/she living in the one bedroom loft could still use the elevator (all entries to each floor via elevator are keyed) in the case furniture, groceries or other large heavy items need to be transported. The elevator is large enough to fit a wheelchair and can fit most appliances and furniture. Large furniture may not fit. Reason for this design is that many people in Hawaii buy a home and rent out a portion of it to help cover the mortgage. Cost of living here is ridiculous, and housing is the biggest expense. Extended family living is also very popular here so the ability to separate one unit into two becomes very attractive. Keep in mind this place is being built in dense urban Honolulu, in downtown. The average one bedroom is about 600 sq ft, studio about 375 sq ft and 2 bedroom about 900 sq ft (we have to be much more efficient with space here). Without splitting the unit into two, the two bedroom is about 1,100 sq ft. If the property was split into a one bedroom and studio, the size would be 750 and 350 sq ft respectively, well within the acceptable size range for the area.
...See More
Downsizing by buying cheaper land and building a smaller home?
Q
Comments (12)
In our case, we moved from dense suburbs in FL to rural SC. The cost of living is much lower here. We bought 7 acres for about half what a tiny (1/6) acre lot would be in our old neighborhood. We were getting clobbered on property taxes and homeowner's insurance. On just those two items alone, we are saving about $5000 a year. Where our plan is different is that the only way we could afford to do this was by doing a mostly DIY build. Otherwise, we'd have far more invested in our new house than the old one was worth. It's pretty hard to beat the price of an existing home by building a new one, so you might want to look at existing homes in the new area you want to live. By going DIY, we were able to build a very energy efficient fully custom home. It is small (1400 sq ft), but has an insulated walk-out basement, so we could double the useful square footage easily and inexpensively. We went ICF construction, R-50 insulation in the attic, and very good windows. We've been able to keep the house comfortable with a single small (12K BTU) mini-split heat pump, and electric bills have been under $100 for an all-electric home. There will be a lot of custom touches that would be found in higher-end homes. It's a hobby for me, so the time spent isn't much of a factor. The takeaway for us is that we have the house we want, on the land we want, in the climate we want, and no mortgage! Zoning is lax around here, and there are no HOA's to answer to. Above and beyond the energy savings, our house is strong, quiet, and there are no cold spots- the entire house is very even in temperature with no drafts. Everything exceeds code, so we won't have to contend with faulty wiring and plumbing issues. As others have said, developing raw land can get expensive. Bringing in utilities, digging a well and septic, plus a driveway add to the cost. If everything goes well, it still adds up. If there are issues- the sky's the limit. Check into permits and fees, too. The most extreme case I know of is a friend of mine that wanted to build on partial wetlands in CT. He wound up spending $66,000 on permits and fees! By comparison, ours were $480 for a house and barn. I'd have to dig out a bunch of receipts to tell you what we spent on developing our property, but I would guess we spent at least $20K, and we don't have a well. All told, we've probably spent $150K, and that's mostly DIY. Our house in FL did sell for more than that, so I guess technically, we did achieve a savings, as long as I don't count 3 years of my own labor. The real savings will be when we retire, and have lower taxes, insurance and utilities, as well as not having a mortgage.
...See More
Cadyren
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I've never lived in a 2200 sq. ft. home. Have raised 2 kids and 2 dogs in my 1500 sq. ft which is up from 1200 sq. ft. that we built in the 1980s. It was built this way because rates were 12% and we built what we could afford. Somehow we have lived with 4 people and 1 bathroom for over 2 decades. Guests can find a hotel. I am not paying for space I use once or twice a year.
lorrainebecker
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I remember that thread!
I was very excited because that was the kind of house I had been looking for and couldn't find. I had wanted new construction after living in some really old homes, but I couldn't stomach the kinds of houses builders were making.

We ended up buying a fixer upper that was underpriced, planning to be in a good cash position when prices dropped. Then we could pick up a bargain whether or not we sold this house. But we've been thinking firstly, that this 1700sf house is not so bad, and secondly that we'd rather wait and see what the next wave of new construction will bring. I hope your smaller, greener, more efficient houses are right on the horizon in my part of Connecticut.
pamghatten
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
My current 2500 sq foot home is too large, but adaptable.

My parents built on a 600 sq ft. room for them to stay in when they visit. I close that off except when company is coming.

When my knees and ankle becaome a problem, and they will eventually, I'll close off the upstairs, and use their large bedroom as my own.

I do wish now that I hadn't done such high ceilings int he 2 additions, but at this point I'm not willing to lower them, maybe eventually.

I wold like to put solar panels on my barn, and a personal windmill in the back pasture. I don't currently have the money for these 2 projects, but will at some point.

The big windmills are going up in my local rural area, and causing quite a stir. I think they are good, but many people do not. They put windmills on the waterfront in Buffalo, and people complained that they ruined their view. I asked, What View? The windmills were placed on the old Bethlehem Steel plant property. The view of a decaying steel plant is better than a cleaned up propoerty with some windmills????
dreamgarden
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Looks like smaller, more efficient furniture is on the horizon as well. This should be good news for college students and retirees (or petite persons) who often find it necessary to hire or recruit help to move or re-arrange what heavier furniture they have.

Demographics, markets shrink furniture designs
Oct 25, 2008
By Chuck Burton, AP

Furniture manufacturers are responding to downsizing baby boomers and the growing appeal of urban living by reducing the scale of dressers, coffee tables, night stands, and the like.The trend tracks the slowing residential real estate market and demographic changes.

"Increasingly, people are choosing to live by themselves, with apartments and flats becoming a more popular choice of residence in metropolitan areas. These smaller households therefore also drive large demand for smaller furniture items," according to a recent report by IBISWorld Inc., a Los Angeles-based industry intelligence firm.

Smaller furniture also is in line with moves by home builders to trim the scale of some new homes to meet reduced buying power. KB Home, which once offering large homes with expensive amenities, has redesigned its new home layouts from 3,400 square feet, to 2,400 square-foot homes. And it recently unveiled a 1,230-square-foot home for the foreclosure-stricken Southern California market.

A link that might be useful:

www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2008-10-25-furniture-shrink_N.htm?csp=34
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
The downsizing of homes and furniture is a direct result of the downturn in the financial markets,be it homes,stocks/et al....When the economy turns,which it will at some point,the "excesses" will return,for better or worse
triciae
Original Author
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I agree, qdog, that when this immediate crisis recedes there will once again develop some type of excess. But, it will not be in the same type of housing associated with this excess. Americans are creative...we will think of something not envisioned today.

There's tremendous pent-up demand for housing now; but buyers are going to want a different product going forward. Manufacturers will introduce new products, styles, colors, etc. to entice people. Americans are so 'over' their McMansion phase. They'll want something new to get excited about. Grante counters, Wolfe & Sub-Zero SS appliances, & two-story foyers are going to draw the, "Oh my gosh, it's SOOOOO dated! Let's go look at those new stylish homes over on Main Street. They look so easy to live in!", from buyers.

/tricia
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
It'll be interesting to see,thats for sure...I still have serious doubts that homeowners will scale down from wolfe/subzero's(not that i have them)..Just like a Mercedes owner would NEVER trade down to a Toyota...
david_cary
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I don't see that much of a change either - but that is just my opinion. Space is always nice to have and designed well - it is not the energy hog that an old house can be.
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
It'll be interesting to see,thats for sure...I still have serious doubts that homeowners will scale down from wolfe/subzero's(not that i have them)..Just like a Mercedes owner would NEVER trade down to a Toyota...
lyfia
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
qdognj - I couldn't help myself, but I guess I traded down from the Mercedes to a Toyota. Haven't had to have any warranty work done since. Was not happy with my ML as it left me stranded out in the middle of nowhere with computer problems. Also had lots of rattles etc. The CLK wasn't much better. Never got rid of the vibrations in the front end and it also had computer issues. My Camry on the other hand I'm very happy with from a grocery getter/commuter stand point. Got other vehicles for the fun although the SE camry handles really well too.

I do see your point though that unless you feel you have wasted space or like me issues with a product that it would be hard to trade down if you can still afford what you have and you happen to really like it.

I do wish at times that we had a smaller house as we tried our hardest to keep a smaller size and not have areas we don't use on a regular basis. We still ended up with 2300 sq ft (goal was 1900 sq ft). So far we're using all rooms except the breakfast area. Once we have our little one I think that will be the play area as it will satisfy the kiddos need to be near us and within our line of sight from all but the bedrooms, so I don't feel too bad about it.
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
don't drive a Mercedes either,lol...But i do have 2 alleged upscale vehicles,lol...And i can assure you,i wouldn't trade down to a Hyundai,ever...My point is people will continue to whatever they can afford,whether its high end vehicles,larger homes,vacation homes etc...This downturn in housing and economy and stock market will be painful to many,but others will thrive...And time heals all wounds... ;)
robynpa
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I live in a 2,000 SF townhouse. The SF is fine but the layout is not so great. I would love to some day live in a "Not So big House" like Sarah Susanka designs.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Not So Big House.
chisue
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Some of the biggest homes in older communities are also the OLDEST ones -- big old Victorians and huge lakefront villas. 'Big' isn't always 'new', as in McMansions. The difference is that the old homes were built when people had big families and live-in help. The 'prestige' factor isn't new either.

Our town's preservation society claims it isn't 'green' to tear down older homes to replace them with 'more energy efficient' ones, nor to replace old single pane windows. The removal goes into landfill and the low-E double pane replacement windows will fail in a couple of decades. They claim old windows merely need storms and caulking to be just as efficient. Not sure I buy that, and what about the mechanicals and insulation?

DH and I started looking for a one-story 'small house with big rooms' in the late 1990's. We ended up custom building. Around 2005 builders began offering a few one-story plans instead of just big two-story boxes. Now we hear more about 'quality not just quantity' building. A good thing!

Never underestimate the market force of Boomers! I wonder how the post-Boomer group will impact housing. There was a big dip in numbers; I remember school districts downsizing from the time our DS started kindergarten.

I'd sure welcome some smaller-scaled furniture and vehicles.

Funny about cars. At one time we owned a little Toyota wagon (RR station car, mostly) and a Jaguar sedan. I had to remember which I was driving when I came to a four-way stop sign. If it was the wagon, I was expected to yield. If it was the Jag, other cars yielded. (Thus endeth the Sociology lesson for today.)
jakkom
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Actually, it surprises me how many Gen X and Y couples that I know, either want to have, or already have started, having children. It's definitely a higher percentage than the Boomers I know.

At one point during the period when I worked at a dot-com consulting company, 43 of the 350 employees were expecting their first or second child, including the two brothers who co-founded the company. And of course, the rise in minorities equals higher birth numbers as well. One of the things my DH's family has always disliked about me is that I didn't want to have children - something that in their Catholic eyes, was as close to a sin as you could get.

Boomers will need universal design one-story designs, of which there are pitiably few in the San Francisco Bay Area.
chisue
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
jkom51 -- Your area may get some flat land and one-story houses after The Big One. LOL

The son of dear friends is with Risk Management. He and his family, his sister and his parents all live in the Bay area *despite* knowing "it's coming".
logic
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
lyfia: "Was not happy with my ML as it left me stranded out in the middle of nowhere with computer problems. Also had lots of rattles etc. The CLK wasn't much better. Never got rid of the vibrations in the front end and it also had computer issues."

Brand new 2002 C Class..WORST car we ever owned. It was a Yugo disguised as a Mercedes. Head gasket at 10K miles...gas gauge NEVER worked..despite many attempts to fix...panoramic sunroof worked when it wanted to.Seats did not always move back after moving forward...locks and windows temperamental...power steering pump went at 25K miles...replacement on back order.

I LIVED at the dealership...finally took a loss to get rid of it..Have had Infinti's and Acura's since, along with Honda and Nissan...not one problem.

Research showed that Mercedes quality totally tanked since '99 or so..and about a year ago, they were quoted as finally admitting all of the problems, and that their goal was to achieve the quality level of Toyota.

That said, trading a Mercedes for a Toyota is actually "trading up". :-D
bellaflora
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I would prefer efficient layout & quality over size any day. There are a lot of McMansions around here -- they are about 4000-6000sqft and there are so many wasted rooms: like the wine tasting room next to the wine cellar, the library, massage room next to the master bedroom, etc. One of the model I see actually has 2 toilets in a master bath (his & hers!) I am surprised that the people who buy these houses are actually older folks with older children, and not younger families with young children. Just 2 people living in all that space! When I am old, I probably want a tiny 500 sqft cottage -- I don't want to get loss in my own house. :-)

I hate our current formal DR & formal LR and would gladly trade them for a large family room & large kitchen.
lyfia
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
LOL - logic that is exactly how I felt after I got rid of them. Good Riddance!
joyy
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
we just moved to a larger house - 1900 sq.ft. our last house was 625 sq.ft. i don't like the size of this house and i hate the housework that comes with it. i also miss feeling 'cozy' and lower utility bills (and smaller mortgage). where we moved, there was little to choose from when we needed to buy (due to work). we'd have been thrilled with about 1000 - 1200 sq ft. we wanted it to be a little bigger than what we'd had but not this big.

we have wasted space, too. our 'formal dining room' is now an office, which works out well. i have absolutely no idea what to do with the 'formal living room' space. it just sits there. the basement is fully finished and the kids use it as a rec room but there are an additional two bedrooms down there that will hardly ever be touched.

my other gripe is that i can NEVER find my slippers in this place.. >:(

we've already talked about our next home which is about 10 years away. the kids will be grown (hopefully GONE...lol) and the house will defintely be under 1000 sq ft. the only benefit i've found regarding extra space is having extra storage but a house doesn't need to be three times larger than our last house to get it.
jane__ny
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I grew up in a small house a zillion years ago. When I got married we bought a large house with over an acre of land. We used 'all' the house. Two kids, lots of dogs, lots of hobbies, friends, parties. I could never live in a small house again, I'd feel claustrophobic.

Even now, with my children grown and gone, we still use the entire house. When my kids and grandkids come, there's plenty of room, and space for everyone to be comfortable. We have tons of books, music, grand piano, plants and more plants. I love having my own space as does my husband. No one is tripping over the other.

Everyone thinks we should downsize and I wonder why. Our interests have only grown over the years. Why would I want to live in a small house? If I could afford it, I'd buy one of those giant houses as long as it had enough land for privacy and gardens.
3katz4me
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
It will be interesting to see just what comes next. We have been looking at relocating. We live in a 35 year old 2500 square foot house that we've been gradually "rebuilding" as things fall apart. It's a unique house on a great lot in a high demand area but it was rather poorly constructed in the 70s. It's getting pretty nice now as we've replaced things with quality materials and craftsmanship. It's along the lines of The Not So Big House now. Quality and character vs. size.

When we looked at houses in the new area I didn't see anything comparable. The new company is in the outskirts of a good sized metro area but much of the nearby housing is pretty new and comparable priced homes are gargantuan, unimaginative, made of cheap materials and on postage stamp size lots and they all start to look the same. Lots of them were vacant and you do wonder how long they will be. I didn't want any of them for many reasons including the fact I might not be able to unload it if I decided to move again.
tulips
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
We have a 2200 sf house in MN and are currently living in an 800 sf apartment in West Los Angeles. During a brief time between the 2, we were staying with friends. They just finished building their 7000 sf house. I've decided that I NEVER would want a house that large and, while 2200 is a better fit, the changes we've had to make in our lifestyles in the 800 sf apartment have been very valuable. We don't have too many spaces to look before we have to find something and I can finally clean my own house! We've been able to reduce our carbon foot print merely out of necessity. There's not alot of room for the tons of stuff we still have stored in MN. While I do miss some of my "stuff", I am happier without most of it bogging me down and holding me back. I agree that efficient and creative use of space and building quality is key for a good purchase.
c9pilot
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I just posted to the "McMansions" thread before I read this one, where everyone is saying pretty much exactly what I was trying to....
Anyway, I subscribe to the TNSBH concepts and looked for a house with a flexible, fully usable floor plan. We went from about 3500sf with full basement for storage to our current 2000sf. Had to declutter all the big stuff and still quite a bit of the smaller stuff to go. Added elderly mother and two guinea pigs to the already existing husband working at home, two kids, dog and three parrots (but the parrots live out on the lanai). Sailboat in backyard serves as 3BR/2BA guesthouse; or guests can opt for the pullout sofa or blow up mattresses.

My SIL lives in what I'd guess is a 3500sf house and put an offer in for a larger short-sale in her neighborhood. She's kind of stuck because her house has a weird, inflexible floor plan with lots of open floor space. For example, you could hold a small yoga class in her bathroom because it's just huge with all the bathroom stuff around the walls and open floor in the middle. And it has upstairs and downstairs foyers that are as big as our small bedroom. Can't do much with a foyer. So her only choice is to go bigger if she wants to stay in the same schools because they only built giant homes all around. Her neighborhood in Rocklin is one of the older ones so the homes there are "smaller" than all the newer ones. It's going to be interesting to see what the builders start doing in her neighborhood now...(although it's almost all built out now so that I can barely find her house.)
disneyrsh
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
qdognj wrote:

"t'll be interesting to see,thats for sure...I still have serious doubts that homeowners will scale down from wolfe/subzero's(not that i have them)..Just like a Mercedes owner would NEVER trade down to a Toyota..."

I'm laughing SO hard here, because we did exactly that. We had a 1995 Mercedes E320, and we just got sick of the stupid thing breaking on us over and over again, and always having to pay so much to have it fixed. So, we traded it in for a 2004 Toyota Corolla, brand new, about as basic as you can get. We just needed something to get from point A to B, and as the Merc was letting us down on that front, out it went.

Four years later, we're feeling SO smart. Although we still do look longingly at the beautiful mercedes, we'll not be buying another one.
qdognj
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Not to be demeaning but a 1995 Mercedes is not the analogy i was making in regards to high-end appliances..It is the newer Mercedes to which i was referring...Ask any person who purchased a Mercedes in the last 3 years if they'd trade down to a Toyota...
david_cary
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Ok - 2005 BMW 545 - loaded (heads up display/20 way adj seats etc). Got out of lease early and got me a 2007 Honda Civic.

I looked at MB but wanted the better driving experience of a BMW. I'll give you that the MB is a little glitzier in the interior but they are pretty close on most fronts. And I hope you think that Toyota and Honda are pretty comparable (and a Civic is much less luxurious than an Accord/Camry) so the change in amenities was significant.

Now people definitely raised their eyebrows but then when gas hit $4, they understood the wisdom. I'm not the only surgeon I know driving a Civic either - there is one hospital where 3 of the 12 have Civics (including me - all hybrids)
disneyrsh
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Back in 1995 the E320 was considered the workhorse of the MB badge.

We looked last year at the mercedes diesel bluetecs, and we just couldn't justify spending that much money on a clean running diesel, no matter how purty it was.

Anybody else out there watch Top Gear on BBC America? So refreshing to watch them regularly verbally demolish luxury cars...

Well, not all of them. They do love the Aston Martin Db9, and Jeremy did get chased by a British Tank in a Land Rover sport he was testing.

Pardon the thread spread...

Here is a link that might be useful: Top Gear
chisue
15 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
FYI: There is a 'Cars' forum here, for those who want to discuss that subject. This is a Housing forum.

Smaller, More Efficient Homes On The Horizon

Comments (30)

triciae
Original Author

qdognj

Related Discussions

Cadyren

lorrainebecker

pamghatten

dreamgarden

qdognj

triciae
Original Author

qdognj

david_cary

qdognj

lyfia

qdognj

robynpa

chisue

jakkom

chisue

logic

bellaflora

lyfia

joyy

jane__ny

3katz4me

tulips

c9pilot

disneyrsh

qdognj

david_cary

disneyrsh

chisue

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Smaller, More Efficient Homes On The Horizon

Comments (30)

triciaeOriginal Author

Related Discussions

triciaeOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

triciae
Original Author

triciae
Original Author