Is small the new big???

I forgot to add that in the spirit of being candid - we live in just over 2100 s.f (family of 4) - it is a 3 bedroom plus office, 3-1/2 bath. Works just fine for us but I constantly meet people who tell me that their 4500 s.f house is too little for them - and I am left wondering: What needs do they have that I do not????

And finally, I know an architect (very well known in the field) who does absolutely excellent work and he was recently asked by someone in the US to design a (drum roll please..................) a 120,000 s.f house (no typos - that is a one hundred and twenty thousand s.f. house!!!!! I asked him, "where the hell do you begin with this and what is his program???" - I was told 3 programs:

1) For him and his wife
2) For their kids and guests (interesting that the kids are lumped with guests and not parents - kids' ages vary from 6-15
3) For his business.....

Thank you all for this excellent feedback (plus I needed a break from the political forum!). Many of you make some excellent points and it is great to see how many of you are willing to downsize and reap the benefits of living smaller. I actually loved reading your personal stories and knowing some of you it has been particularly interesting and enlightening.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

Oh chickypea, I have been asking this question forever around here. Mr. K has tried and tried to explain it to me. He says if there is an empty lot or a teardown on an $800,000 lot purchased by a builder, he will want to make $$$ by building as many sq. ft. as possible, since he makes no money on the land. If I owned said lot, I could possibly find a builder to build that smaller home.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

During the RE frenzy folks were building/buying high-priced "investment" property so they can service the Baby Boomers (or so says the sales pitch)....but consider this:


Study: Many Boomers Lack Retirement Fund
Monday July 30, 6:45 pm ET
By Eileen Alt Powell, AP Business Writer

Study Says Nearly One-Third of Older Baby Boomers Haven't Saved Enough for Retirement

NEW YORK (AP) -- Nearly one-third of baby boomers ages 51 to 61 are at risk of not having enough in savings to finance a comfortable retirement, according to a study being released Tuesday by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

With its analysis, the center has joined the national debate over how much savings is enough -- and has done so on the side that says there's a shortfall.

"We just don't believe people are saving too much," Alicia H. Munnell, a professor of management sciences at Boston College and director of the retirement research center, told The Associated Press.

A recently published academic study looked at the retirement preparedness of Americans who were in their 50s in 1992 and concluded that at least 80 percent had more than enough assets for retirement. Other scientists have argued that Americans may be saving too much.

The new Boston College study evaluated the same 51-61 age group, but looked at their finances in 2004, and found 32 percent to be "at risk" for not being able to maintain their preretirement standing of living in retirement.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070730/boomers_savings.html?.v=2

Thank you all for this excellent feedback (plus I needed a break from the political forum!). Many of you make some excellent points and it is great to see how many of you are willing to downsize and reap the benefits of living smaller. I actually loved reading your personal stories and knowing some of you it has been particularly interesting and enlightening.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

I don't know if this is the answer to the question, Chickpea, but I think the overwhelming (though thankfully changing?) mentality in this country is that "bigger is better." Not "better is better."

It's a fine idea in and of itself--bigger is better--but somehow it's turned into a mockery of its original intent. In the housing market in particular, it's become an end, not a means. A brand new bigger house is what success looks like to its purchasers. If I have a bigger house, that means I have a bigger job, a bigger income, a bigger life than the person whose house is not so bigger as mine. It's simple. I live big, therefore I AM big.

I like the concept of bigger is better in its best form: I'd like to build a house that is full of bigger ideas. I'd like an architect who could think big on my behalf and build me a house that is made of the best, most useful materials and have the best use of space to suit the needs of my family and friends, thus giving an overall feeling of competence and quality. If all these things were in a house, it would feel grand, and that feeling would have nothing to do with how much square footage was involved. In fact, well-designed houses defy square footage.

I do think, however, that does not appeal to the market at large, at least not if current building trends up and down 30-A are any indication. I think it takes courage to buy something deliberately less McMansionish (especially if you could afford it, and especially if most of your peers were doing it). The movement towards making the choice for quality of construction versus quantity of construction is still something still in its infancy. Gaining a strong toehold, though. There's always the hope that common sense will once again triumph.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

I think this would have to do with the size of the homes in the neighborhood. If you live in McMansionville and there's still a vacant lot around, anyone who purchases it will be inclined to keep up with the Joneses or be inclined to construct in tune with the feel for the neighborhood.

My neighborhood is an exception though. In the late 80's, early 90's, they built homes in the 4000 sq ft range, but then the developer went belly up. Most of us didn't need homes that size, and built homes in the 2200-3000 sq ft range. We all sit on large lots of about 2-3 acres. Some people as their families expanded or brought in-laws to live with them expanded their homes, but most left them alone.

My next door neighbor though who built last decided to build a 5000 sq ft home with an outbuilding studio :shock: and recently went to have to it appraised.
It really didn't appraise that much more than mine being that I have a larger level lot (hers has a large incline) She really thought that she would get a much higher value than what I had thought she she came to me for a refinance. She's always complaining about her utility bills and maintenance of the house and its just her and her 2 daughters.

People forget that it is location, location and adjustments will be made on an appraisal for square footage obviously upon appraisal, but the location and topography of the land is what is most important.

I do want to note that in an appraisal and for those considering downsizing, that even though you may have the same sq footage, updated baths, use of specific materials etc. will make a difference in value.
In my area (not sure about how they do it in sowal) if someone has a 2 bedroom, the appraiser will try to find 2 bedrooms vs, a 3 bedroom with the same sq. footage, so if I were to downsize, I would try for a 3 bedroom house, or build it so I can convert it back to 3 bedroom for resale purposes if necessary.

I think Paula's cottages are an excellent example of a 3 bedroom layout design for downsizing.

The amount of space you NEED and would USE is very often not what you will end up with. Real estate agents and builders will steer you towards a larger home because they get more $$ that way. It is also more challenging/exacting work to design & build a more compact home so people cut corners and just make stuff bigger and generic.

Craftsmanship and charm will always sell a house better and faster than a list of "features" and unnecessary square footage.

The amount of space you NEED and would USE is very often not what you will end up with. Real estate agents and builders will steer you towards a larger home because they get more $$ that way. It is also more challenging/exacting work to design & build a more compact home so people cut corners and just make stuff bigger and generic.

Craftsmanship and charm will always sell a house better and faster than a list of "features" and unnecessary square footage.

Wait a minute, missy. Don't go lumping us all together. :nono1: There are plenty of Realtors who don't operate like that.

No, the small is not the new big. Bigger is better in every way.
Bigger houses justify pricey lots, smaller houses dont; imagine paying a million bucks for a building lot and putting a thousand sf house on it and trying to sell it-------the appraiser would give you almost nothing for the house because its size would be obsolete........Who would pay as much for a 1000 sf house as those would pay for a 3 or 4 thousand sf house????? NOBODY.

The same architects who design 1000 sf houses also design 4000 sf houses.
Large houses are not immune to creative design. Are any of you driving around in a mo-ped??? How bout a car built just for gas mileage? No?
Why not? Because Bigger is Better!!!

Wake up America!

Who would pay as much for a 1000 sf house as those would pay for a 3 or 4 thousand sf house????? NOBODY.

The same architects who design 1000 sf houses also design 4000 sf houses.
Large houses are not immune to creative design.

More isn't always better, sometimes it's just more!

Obviously, if everything was equal (location, lot size etc), people wouldn't pay as much for 1000 as they do for 4000. One would certainly hope the latter has more bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.

I'm not saying large houses can't be creative, but that smaller houses w/ space limitations require more creativity, just as a smaller suitcase makes you have to plan better when packing. Innovation usually occurs when you have limited resources and options!

Paula,
Beautifully stated, thoughtful, intelligent and evocative like so many of your posts!

Awwwweee, Chickpea Thanks. It was a looong post so somewhere in there were a few good ideas! Also consider that people who want small homes fall into different categories -- simple/efficient/low cost to bells&whistles/probably efficient/high cost/upscale.

One comparison of similar square foot cottages would be the ones behind Angelina's and the Cottages at Camp Creek. I think they're both about the same square footage, though the ones behind Angelina's are two stories and the ones at Cottages at Camp Creek that are similar square footage are all on one floor. I'd be curious to see the inside of the ones behind Angelina's to see how they used the space. Magnolia cottages are probably the next step up in size.

I think it also makes a difference in the type of house it will be. Chickpea mentioned a primary residence, which should be designed differently than a second home. Outdoor storage, as well as creative closet space is needed, to name a couple of differences.

I also love "The Not So Big House" book and concept. Jdarg - I have the "Creating the Not So Big House" book if you ever want to borrow it.

Thanks- I might! I need to read the "Not so Much Stuff" book first.

Hey, jdarg, you're in luck! The "NSBH" lady has just come out with a book about simplifying your whole life!
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Big-Life-Matters/dp/1400065313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0334390-0900077?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186019055&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: The Not So Big Life: Making Room for What Really Matters: Sarah Susanka: Books[/ame]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -- Edward Abbey 1927-1989

Truer words have never been penned!
Though I hate to say it

I am loving this post because I have always felt this way about the small vs large battle of the builders. We live in Texas. Here, the last 10 years have seen the worst monstrosities posing as "luxury and affluence". I love smaller scale homes with architectural interest and classic lines that are timeless. The houses seem to get bigger and bigger and as Shelly puts it (all have granite) but they lack character and originality.

The real problem is that builders, developers, etc. have refused to build smaller houses or allow the building of smaller houses on the lots in the nicer communities. So if you want to live somewhere that is appealing (better schools or safe environments, for example) you are forced to have a house that is much larger than you really need or want. It is insane!!

I am deeply affirmed by the thoughts on this post, since it makes me feel like I am not alone in my musings. Blessings to all today and thanks to Smiling Joe for the thought on patriotism... it never hurts to think outside of the box!

nmosley! You sound like you might live in my hood! I am getting ready to call the authoritites on a builder getting ready to chop down 2-50 yr. old magnolias and a pecan tree in the backyard of a "teardown" two houses down from me. My friend lives behind this home and will soon have a starter castle peering down in her yard. This teardown leaves me as one of the last original homes on my block.

Clear cutting lots is one of my pet peeves! The native oak trees are so cool!

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -- Edward Abbey 1927-1989

Truer words have never been penned!
Though I hate to say it

I am loving this post because I have always felt this way about the small vs large battle of the builders. We live in Texas. Here, the last 10 years have seen the worst monstrosities posing as "luxury and affluence". I love smaller scale homes with architectural interest and classic lines that are timeless. The houses seem to get bigger and bigger and as Shelly puts it (all have granite) but they lack character and originality.

The real problem is that builders, developers, etc. have refused to build smaller houses or allow the building of smaller houses on the lots in the nicer communities. So if you want to live somewhere that is appealing (better schools or safe environments, for example) you are forced to have a house that is much larger than you really need or want. It is insane!!

I am deeply affirmed by the thoughts on this post, since it makes me feel like I am not alone in my musings. Blessings to all today and thanks to Smiling Joe for the thought on patriotism... it never hurts to think outside of the box!

Great post - thanks.

BTW: who ever decided that granite was truely the mark of a a high end house??? There are many more materials far more interesting and less expensive.

I recently spoke to a developer who has real estate projects all over the world (marketing mostly although not exclusively word of mouth - attracts the super wealthy with private jets) - but all this to say that in his developments, people can buy lots as small as 1/8 acre and as large as 5 acres BUT all houses, even on largest lots are capped at a maximum of 5,000 sf. I asked him if this was ever a problem and he basically said NO - people adjust (especially for vacation homes) and that he and many others are leaning more and more in the direction of small.....music to my ears...

I thought you were going to say that the homes were capped at a size of something like 2000-2500sf.

Check out some of Ross Chapin's designs. Some are like living on a boat, but look well thought out. He is building communities with common areas with the tiny homes surrounding it. I love the style, I just have too much (needless) stuff.

I love that style, too, SJ. Light, porches, sense of community, simple but high quality, charming, colorful. If a small house has a basement, that is a plus in my view because basements add a lot of flexibility without adding height/width to the house. In Florida, though, seems like homes aren't as likely to have basements.

High water table, and you don't need to set the foundation deep because of freeze concerns like you do Up North. The only homes with basements here normally involve walk-outs on hilly lots.

Instead, everyone keeps their junk in the garage. It's amazing how many people are unable to put their cars in the garage because of that.

High water table, and you don't need to set the foundation deep because of freeze concerns like you do Up North. The only homes with basements here normally involve walk-outs on hilly lots.

Instead, everyone keeps their junk in the garage. It's amazing how many people are unable to put their cars in the garage because of that.

BTW: who ever decided that granite was truely the mark of a a high end house??? There are many more materials far more interesting and less expensive.

Chickpea, I've asked this question a million times! It's so strange. I wonder, seriously, how many times I've heard uttered on a re-hab/house flipping show: "Now, in the kitchen we're going to re-do the countertops with granite because this is a very high end area." :roll: Give me concrete or stainless tops over granite any day.

check out these books for living small. http://www.saveourtreehouse.com/SaveOurTreehouse/books/treehouse_books.htm

:roll: Give me concrete or stainless tops over granite any day.

Me too! Or soapstone, limestone, the list can go on and on - glad to hear this though - somehow re-invigorates me!

I have been a Dwell MAG reader for a long time and two or three issues back they showed several couples living in 1000 Sq Ft. homes with creative storage solutions for stuff.

www.dwellmag.com

Cheers,
Son

Me too! Or soapstone, limestone, the list can go on and on - glad to hear this though - somehow re-invigorates me!

Oh, gosh, I absolutely love soapstone--love it! It has a really high price point, too, though, doesn't it?