Housing - Why are smaller houses not being built?

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by supton
No thanks. My son has muscular dystrophy and I'd just as soon not have to install an elevator. Plus one never knows what the future holds for us. Yeah I get it, use it or lose it, but I can get that enough at work (three stories, so I try to walk all three flights once per hour for exercise) or elsewhere.



Wise advice we don't know what the future holds. Hopefully we all live long and happy lives.

 

[JHZR2]

Just saw this thread.

IMO there's a happy medium here. I agree that these giant homes can be a giant waste of space.

My grandparents had a beautiful ~2700 square foot circa 1919 home. It had four huge bedrooms, a living room and parlor, formal dining room, butlers pantry, giant basement, walk up attic (not counted in SF).

Downsides? Only one car garage and only 1.5 bathrooms.

On the flip side, someone else recently bought a 5br, 3.5ba new construction that is totally unfavorable. Beyond huge amounts of wasted space, small bedrooms, no walk up attic, attached garage (yuck). So other than the so-called "prestige" of a new "high end" (and aI wouldn't call any of it high end other than the fact that it has fancy kitchen and bathroom fixtures and a bigger fireplace) house, the thing is a waste.

IMO, if my Grandparents' house traded some of the bedroom size for one more bathroom, a ~2500 sq foot 4br 2.5ba house would be an ideal large home for the standard American family of two adults and 2.3kids. Maybe more.

This new construction is almost always poorly built, and even if not, doesn't have the woodwork, inlaid floors, walk up attics, and overall charm of older homes. If builders could take the design of older homes, apply those less wasteful designs, with new materials and insulation, in the 1500-2500 square foot range, I think there would be winners. 2500 tends to just waste space in current designs.

I don't need 750sq ft to be wasted on a foyer with a vaulted ceiling and giant window and chandelier that will cost a fortune to replace/change bulbs/etc. just to feel "high end". Older homes (and I'm speaking of nicer pre ww2 homes mostly) were more stately and formal than these monstrosities, with more actual craftsmanship than all but the highest "high end" homes.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Fdcg27 is right. Houses should not be considered investments. You have to include the costs of all maintenance and upkeep. If the value goes up that is great but real estate values have turned into bubbles and they eventually revert to the mean.


So true. Just had this discussion the other day about how real estate was such a great investment and how prices are so hot and people are profiting.

Until you subtract the 6% realtor fee; years of property taxes, upkeep, repairs, etc.

Sure, you have to life somewhere. Might as well build equity into something that you can get back out.

But it's more like forced savings than investment.

Dave Ramsey says you make money at the buy in real estate. Buying something with the concept that it will appreciate higher faster and better than other things is folly.

The thing that real estate has going for it is that it's real, and since there's only 24 hours in the day, and people have to live somewhere, if people can afford and rent properties, they can make money off of the fact that others also have to live somewhere, so they can build equity off of others' rent.

The fundamental difference is real estate you have to live in, versus real estate you can afford and that others pay you to live in.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by JHZR2
I don't need 750sq ft to be wasted on a foyer with a vaulted ceiling and giant window and chandelier that will cost a fortune to replace/change bulbs/etc. just to feel "high end". Older homes (and I'm speaking of nicer pre ww2 homes mostly) were more stately and formal than these monstrosities, with more actual craftsmanship than all but the highest "high end" homes.



They do that because that area isn't included in the square footage of the home so it makes it look bigger without adding to it. We have a field area ratio you have to follow that only allows you to build a house based on percentage of land that you have. So if you're limited to 2000 square feet, then the vaulted ceilings make the place look big without adding to the total square footage.

Just like building cars, sometimes they just add things so it looks great on the test drive, but it's not good long term. It's the test drive that sells the car.

 

[JHZR2]

At least on the property In speaking of, the ground level foyer is huge and that first floor at least contributes to the SF.

It's a giant area, probably done up for the reason you state, and far more than a utilitarian mudroom.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by itguy08
Stupid question but what is preventing you from buying a lot and putting your dream house on it? Is there some weird zoning law that states a minimum SqFt? Or are no contractors willing to take on such a small project?


At a guess, both.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Urshurak776
If it was just my wife and I, we could definitely do a smaller house, but I want a shop...so...need a two car garage at minimum. We have three kids, two are teenage boys. I couldn't imagine being in a house that is 1,000 square feet with them....lol

Each to his own. Our house is 3,045 square feet. Wish it was bigger.


Gary Gygax raised 5 children at 330 Center St in Lake Geneva, WI.

As I recall, 330 Center St is ~925 square feet.

 

[CELICA_XX]

I too am from Oklahoma and just built one of these houses you are talking about.

My reason is riff-raff.

You can't buy a house of less than 1500 sq-ft (built in the past 10-40 years) without the neighborhood being absolute CRAP. I have a buddy that moved into a modest sized 1400 sq-ft home built in 1980. His neighborhood is filled with old broken down cars with bald tires leaking oil all over the street... weeds growing up to your knees... neighbors up at all hours of the night (loud music, smoking, yelling profanity, etc...)

No thank you.

The HOA here is necessary to pay for the large private pool, all the landscaping, lights, maintenance etc...

My daughter likes the pool with her friends. She can safely ride her scooter around the neighborhood without the fear of being run over by some guy with face tattoos in an 85 Cutlass driving 45-mph through the neighborhood who may or may not be intoxicated.

I like my house, nice neighbors, and the good families around us.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by CELICA_XX
I too am from Oklahoma and just built one of these houses you are talking about.

My reason is riff-raff.

You can't buy a house of less than 1500 sq-ft (built in the past 10-40 years) without the neighborhood being absolute CRAP. I have a buddy that moved into a modest sized 1400 sq-ft home built in 1980. His neighborhood is filled with old broken down cars with bald tires leaking oil all over the street... weeds growing up to your knees... neighbors up at all hours of the night (loud music, smoking, yelling profanity, etc...)

No thank you.

The HOA here is necessary to pay for the large private pool, all the landscaping, lights, maintenance etc...

My daughter likes the pool with her friends. She can safely ride her scooter around the neighborhood without the fear of being run over by some guy with face tattoos in an 85 Cutlass driving 45-mph through the neighborhood who may or may not be intoxicated.

I like my house, nice neighbors, and the good families around us.

True. My HOA approaches things multi-prong.

-No houses permitted on lots smaller than 5 acres.
-No houses -No houses without HOA approval of plans, first.

Its kept my neighborhood quite upscale. Retired and current walmart corporateexecutives, a commercial airline pilot, and me.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by CELICA_XX
I too am from Oklahoma and just built one of these houses you are talking about.

My reason is riff-raff.

You can't buy a house of less than 1500 sq-ft (built in the past 10-40 years) without the neighborhood being absolute CRAP. I have a buddy that moved into a modest sized 1400 sq-ft home built in 1980. His neighborhood is filled with old broken down cars with bald tires leaking oil all over the street... weeds growing up to your knees... neighbors up at all hours of the night (loud music, smoking, yelling profanity, etc...)

No thank you.

The HOA here is necessary to pay for the large private pool, all the landscaping, lights, maintenance etc...

My daughter likes the pool with her friends. She can safely ride her scooter around the neighborhood without the fear of being run over by some guy with face tattoos in an 85 Cutlass driving 45-mph through the neighborhood who may or may not be intoxicated.

I like my house, nice neighbors, and the good families around us.


We just moved out of an area like this. Never again.

 

[tony1679]

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by CELICA_XX
I too am from Oklahoma and just built one of these houses you are talking about.

My reason is riff-raff.

You can't buy a house of less than 1500 sq-ft (built in the past 10-40 years) without the neighborhood being absolute CRAP. I have a buddy that moved into a modest sized 1400 sq-ft home built in 1980. His neighborhood is filled with old broken down cars with bald tires leaking oil all over the street... weeds growing up to your knees... neighbors up at all hours of the night (loud music, smoking, yelling profanity, etc...)

No thank you.

The HOA here is necessary to pay for the large private pool, all the landscaping, lights, maintenance etc...

My daughter likes the pool with her friends. She can safely ride her scooter around the neighborhood without the fear of being run over by some guy with face tattoos in an 85 Cutlass driving 45-mph through the neighborhood who may or may not be intoxicated.

I like my house, nice neighbors, and the good families around us.


We just moved out of an area like this. Never again.

See? Skippy gets it.

You cite riff-raff. I have a prime location with no riff-raff. Rural (yet 1 mile to the actual city), quiet, secluded, wonderful neighbors and a dead-end road. But it's technically city limits, therefore I can't build what I want (which is a very nice, very appealing, high quality *small* house).

I agree with not being able to buy already built small houses without problems like you mention. This is exactly the reason for my rant. If there's more variety in what's being built today, the problems you speak of wouldn't exist in the future. There would be options. When you build same same same, you get same same same (regardless of now, or 50 years from now). You end up with 'eras' of houses. Very few buck the trend for the era. We're overdue to change that.

 

[ZZman]

I think the "starter" home thing has changed over time. Many want their starter home to be much nicer than in the past.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by ZZman
I think the "starter" home thing has changed over time. Many want their starter home to be much nicer than in the past.

I wanted my starter home to be my retirement home as well, and all in between.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Do it like the past, build small, THEN add on what is needed.

 

[Fawteen]

Originally Posted by fdcg27

The real estate sales guys like to tout houses as investments, but they really aren't.


You don't know what you're talking about. I've been in real estate for almost 40 years and I currently own 38 rental units, 34 of which are single family homes. Every one of them is an investment, and every one of them provides me with a significant monthly income. I've bought and sold another 20 or so properties. All but 3 netted us a significant profit.

Even our own home has more than tripled in value in the last 25 years.

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I totally agree with you Tony. The only way you'll find what you're looking for is to find a "real" house that was built in the 1950s. Real brick, real hardwood,etc. That's why we've rented as long as we have, we can't find that perfect mid-century house we dream of owning. As soon as the perfect one comes up for sale,it's bought immediately. We refuse to buy a cookie cutter piece of junk.


I appreciate people like you. It's people like you that have given my wife and I the ability to retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream. People like you also allowed us to pay for our current home in cash.
Thank you!

Originally Posted by PimTac

$500 a month in my neck of the woods will get you a bedspace and nothing more. Studios are going for $1200-1500 and higher depending on location.

My average rental home is about 1200 square feet. Average monthly rent is around $700. Annual taxes average about $800.

There are better places to live.

 

[JR402]

So I just quickly read through this thread, but generally it has been strange to hear how things are in other parts of the country. Most of what has been commented on is unheard around my area. There are still many nice homes being built and other older homes come up for sale all the time that are very affordable. I think to many they would consider these places to be way out in the country, but it does not seem like that at all when you consider it is only a 10 min drive to get to most stores and businesses in town. To buy an older home for your typical family here is usually around 150k, and that would include around 1 to 4 acres, maybe bordering woods or farmland, taxes around 1000 to 1500 a year.

 

[tony1679]

Originally Posted by Fawteen
Originally Posted by fdcg27

The real estate sales guys like to tout houses as investments, but they really aren't.


You don't know what you're talking about. I've been in real estate for almost 40 years and I currently own 38 rental units, 34 of which are single family homes. Every one of them is an investment, and every one of them provides me with a significant monthly income. I've bought and sold another 20 or so properties. All but 3 netted us a significant profit.

Even our own home has more than tripled in value in the last 25 years.

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I totally agree with you Tony. The only way you'll find what you're looking for is to find a "real" house that was built in the 1950s. Real brick, real hardwood,etc. That's why we've rented as long as we have, we can't find that perfect mid-century house we dream of owning. As soon as the perfect one comes up for sale,it's bought immediately. We refuse to buy a cookie cutter piece of junk.


I appreciate people like you. It's people like you that have given my wife and I the ability to retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream. People like you also allowed us to pay for our current home in cash.
Thank you!
I don't appreciate people like you. It's people like you waltzing around flaunting how they've been buying up all the houses with any semblance of attainability so that they can either flip them (aka adding a bunch of cheap useless crap to make them seem more appealing) for double the amount it was, or so they can rent (usually pronounced 'scam') people out of more money they don't really have so they can "retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream." Either way, by buying one more house for either purpose, it takes away someone else's dream of owning a home and actually being able to afford it. More and more houses are being bought by fewer and fewer owners. Yet we wonder why housing is so expensive. They aren't commodities, they're literal necessities. Commodities like (most) motor oil are sold at many retailers. This keeps the price down. But when it's a need, like electricity (usually monopolized in most areas) it's usually regulated to prevent price gouging. So why is housing different? We regulate where, how, and why, in fine detail, how houses are built. Why are they not regulated to prevent people like Fawteen from buying homes for a living?

I get it, it's called capitalism. I agree, capitalism is the best system. But there should be a point where the flip/rent game gets regulated. But it won't. It'll just keep driving prices higher and higher to the point where nobody will care anymore (look at our homeless population) and go without. That's when recession hits and the market bursts. I bet these are the same landlords that cry foul when their "investment" values plummet. That's when they either sell off properties or sell their own property because they can no longer afford it. All because the page with the word modesty is always ripped out of their dictionary. I have zero sympathy either way. Shouldn't have owned that many in the first place... Oops, I'm rambling/ranting.

Bottom line, it's flaunting wealth in people's face, and quite frankly, it's disgusting and I have zero respect for your type. I'm not "offended" and I certainly am not calling to get the mod police in here. I'm no fan of censorship. Just stating my point of view (and most likely all of your tenants' point of view as well).

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by Fawteen
I appreciate people like you. It's people like you that have given my wife and I the ability to retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream. People like you also allowed us to pay for our current home in cash.
Thank you!


And people like you marry their relatives.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by Fawteen
I appreciate people like you. It's people like you that have given my wife and I the ability to retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream. People like you also allowed us to pay for our current home in cash.
Thank you!


And people like you marry their relatives.

Can I put a different spin on this? (Since it was really bad on delivery)

It's a Win-Win situation:
-you get a house you like and enjoy your (paid off) toys
-you landlord gets a stable tenant (this is a term that says, "I enjoy this rental as a Home") with good credit history

 

[pandus13]

Tony,

Most Mom&Pop landlords have less than 10 properties with the very majority owning 1. Usually a former primary residence.
So you may have envy on your neighbor, cousin, co-worker, etc

Than you have funds/hedge funds/investors/outside US investors that could buy in the tens of thousands...

Maybe you should think how good was Fawteen at:
-screening tenants
-renovating houses/apartments (market speaks and renters would go for a cheaper/better deal)
-managing contractors
-not a lot of sleep
-having systems in place to run something smoothly

You know, not all landlords are slumlords or out to take all the money from the tenants. It works both ways...



Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Fawteen
Originally Posted by fdcg27

The real estate sales guys like to tout houses as investments, but they really aren't.


You don't know what you're talking about. I've been in real estate for almost 40 years and I currently own 38 rental units, 34 of which are single family homes. Every one of them is an investment, and every one of them provides me with a significant monthly income. I've bought and sold another 20 or so properties. All but 3 netted us a significant profit.

Even our own home has more than tripled in value in the last 25 years.

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I totally agree with you Tony. The only way you'll find what you're looking for is to find a "real" house that was built in the 1950s. Real brick, real hardwood,etc. That's why we've rented as long as we have, we can't find that perfect mid-century house we dream of owning. As soon as the perfect one comes up for sale,it's bought immediately. We refuse to buy a cookie cutter piece of junk.


I appreciate people like you. It's people like you that have given my wife and I the ability to retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream. People like you also allowed us to pay for our current home in cash.
Thank you!
I don't appreciate people like you. It's people like you waltzing around flaunting how they've been buying up all the houses with any semblance of attainability so that they can either flip them (aka adding a bunch of cheap useless crap to make them seem more appealing) for double the amount it was, or so they can rent (usually pronounced 'scam') people out of more money they don't really have so they can "retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream." Either way, by buying one more house for either purpose, it takes away someone else's dream of owning a home and actually being able to afford it. More and more houses are being bought by fewer and fewer owners. Yet we wonder why housing is so expensive. They aren't commodities, they're literal necessities. Commodities like (most) motor oil are sold at many retailers. This keeps the price down. But when it's a need, like electricity (usually monopolized in most areas) it's usually regulated to prevent price gouging. So why is housing different? We regulate where, how, and why, in fine detail, how houses are built. Why are they not regulated to prevent people like Fawteen from buying homes for a living?

I get it, it's called capitalism. I agree, capitalism is the best system. But there should be a point where the flip/rent game gets regulated. But it won't. It'll just keep driving prices higher and higher to the point where nobody will care anymore (look at our homeless population) and go without. That's when recession hits and the market bursts. I bet these are the same landlords that cry foul when their "investment" values plummet. That's when they either sell off properties or sell their own property because they can no longer afford it. All because the page with the word modesty is always ripped out of their dictionary. I have zero sympathy either way. Shouldn't have owned that many in the first place... Oops, I'm rambling/ranting.

Bottom line, it's flaunting wealth in people's face, and quite frankly, it's disgusting and I have zero respect for your type. I'm not "offended" and I certainly am not calling to get the mod police in here. I'm no fan of censorship. Just stating my point of view (and most likely all of your tenants' point of view as well).