Small families with big houses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how many of you that live like this give AF about anyone else or the planet. I find this kind of conspicuous consumption disgusting.

I live in a 2000 sq ft house and don't give AF about anyone else on the planet.

Enjoy your loneliness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how many of you that live like this give AF about anyone else or the planet. I find this kind of conspicuous consumption disgusting.

I feel great about my solar powered house, where I work from home which means no commute, no single-use lunch items, and a minimalist wardrobe.

Meanwhile my coworker is voluntarily driving to the office because her house is too small to work from. I don't criticize her but I'm not convinced I'm the one who is bad for the environment.

I find that a lot of the angst about big houses is a sort of aesthetic puritanism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how many of you that live like this give AF about anyone else or the planet. I find this kind of conspicuous consumption disgusting.

I feel great about my solar powered house, where I work from home which means no commute, no single-use lunch items, and a minimalist wardrobe.

Meanwhile my coworker is voluntarily driving to the office because her house is too small to work from. I don't criticize her but I'm not convinced I'm the one who is bad for the environment.

I find that a lot of the angst about big houses is a sort of aesthetic puritanism.

Agree with this. Where's the outrage at my employer for having enormous office suites that they are heating and cooling to be used by a handful of people per day for the last 2.5 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how many of you that live like this give AF about anyone else or the planet. I find this kind of conspicuous consumption disgusting.

I feel great about my solar powered house, where I work from home which means no commute, no single-use lunch items, and a minimalist wardrobe.

Meanwhile my coworker is voluntarily driving to the office because her house is too small to work from. I don't criticize her but I'm not convinced I'm the one who is bad for the environment.

I find that a lot of the angst about big houses is a sort of aesthetic puritanism.

Agree with this. Where's the outrage at my employer for having enormous office suites that they are heating and cooling to be used by a handful of people per day for the last 2.5 years?

Whataboutism strikes again.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t they design space better spaces? Our cookie cutter new subdivisions are just McMansions without any consideration for use of material or space.

My friends bought new construction a few years ago. It’s 4200 sq ft, but it’s so badly designed, they don’t have enough space and the kitchen is so big that cooking there is a constant walking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in the exurbs and many of my neighbors are empty nesters in 5k sq ft houses because there are no affordable smaller options. You either get McMansions or high density townhouse communities.

Yes, this is why we have a sfh. There are no in-between options here built after about 1960.

Same in our area. All the older smaller SFH have been razed for 5K+ homes for the last two decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read numerous studies that smaller homes (not teeny, but 'normal size') make for closer families. The studies I read about this mentioned the number of daily interactions/forced passings in the home. You engage in more conversations, interactions, etc. People aren't in the separate wing of the home of in their gigantic bath-in suite kid bedroom. From what I've seen IRL, there is a lot of truth to this.

Everyone has to eat and there is only one kitchen so that is interaction central. Our family eats dinner together almost every night.

[Anonymous]

In my experience, most people who care about the environmental effects of consumption don't maintain consistent views. For example, I rarely eat out and generate very little trash; but a friend who cares about "consumption" orders takeout a lot, and the waste from takeout is enormous. Also, I admittedly have an old vehicle that is not fuel efficient, but I drive about 3000 miles per year. Meanwhile, I know people who care about "consumption" who drive 12K-15K miles per year in their more fuel efficient vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, most people who care about the environmental effects of consumption don't maintain consistent views. For example, I rarely eat out and generate very little trash; but a friend who cares about "consumption" orders takeout a lot, and the waste from takeout is enormous. Also, I admittedly have an old vehicle that is not fuel efficient, but I drive about 3000 miles per year. Meanwhile, I know people who care about "consumption" who drive 12K-15K miles per year in their more fuel efficient vehicles.

You are right a lot of people who claim to care about the environment consistently make personal choices that are counter to this, all while shaming others for not recycling hard enough or something. I know lots of UMC "progressives" who make a show out of stuff like carrying around their own metal straws and driving an electric vehicle, but travel extensively, live in huge homes, doing endless takeout, etc.

BUT there actually are some of us who are not just environmentalists for show. We just tend not to be as showy about it because it's not about proving we're the right kind of people, it's about actually trying to decrease our environmental impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, most people who care about the environmental effects of consumption don't maintain consistent views. For example, I rarely eat out and generate very little trash; but a friend who cares about "consumption" orders takeout a lot, and the waste from takeout is enormous. Also, I admittedly have an old vehicle that is not fuel efficient, but I drive about 3000 miles per year. Meanwhile, I know people who care about "consumption" who drive 12K-15K miles per year in their more fuel efficient vehicles.

You are right a lot of people who claim to care about the environment consistently make personal choices that are counter to this, all while shaming others for not recycling hard enough or something. I know lots of UMC "progressives" who make a show out of stuff like carrying around their own metal straws and driving an electric vehicle, but travel extensively, live in huge homes, doing endless takeout, etc.

BUT there actually are some of us who are not just environmentalists for show. We just tend not to be as showy about it because it's not about proving we're the right kind of people, it's about actually trying to decrease our environmental impact.

If you are an environmentalist, though, you already know that individual action can never be more than a drop in the bucket. Slowing climate change, pollution, the water crisis, etc. can only happen through widescale government action directed primarily at businesses. I say this not to justify wasteful behavior by individuals, but because harping on individual behavior is a distraction from real solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and i moved into a 7800 sqft home with 7 bedrooms and we love it. We have a yoga room, 2 offices, and lots of room for family and guests. Highly recommend it!

This seems tone-deaf to "highly recommend" something that many can't afford.

Right? Big Marie Antoinette energy here.

[Anonymous]

A lot of y'all don't have in-laws living with you and it shows. I thought multi-generational living is supposed to be the future of the Millennials! You're going to do that in 2000-2500 sq ft and two bathrooms? With kids, too? Have fun and good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my searches in Arlington, there is often not that much of a price difference between well maintained, older 3-4 bedroom houses with 2500 sq ft (often around $1.5-$1.7 million) and relatively new McMansions with 5-6 bedrooms with 4000-5000 sq ft (often around $1.8-$2.0 million). So it can make lots of sense to just go for the bigger house, even if you don't really need the extra space.

Lots of sense how? You need to heat, cool, and maintain twice as much house. You have to furnish twice as much house. Why would you do that if you didn't actually really want more space?

I mean it's one thing if you want more space, many people do for many reasons. But I would never be like "oh I don't need more space but why not, I'll buy a house twice as large because the price is the same anyways". Like, even if they tell you you get a free second entree with the purchase of one entree, it doesn't mean it's always the best idea to just eat them both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of y'all don't have in-laws living with you and it shows. I thought multi-generational living is supposed to be the future of the Millennials! You're going to do that in 2000-2500 sq ft and two bathrooms? With kids, too? Have fun and good luck.

I'm a 39 year old millenial and have never heard this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my searches in Arlington, there is often not that much of a price difference between well maintained, older 3-4 bedroom houses with 2500 sq ft (often around $1.5-$1.7 million) and relatively new McMansions with 5-6 bedrooms with 4000-5000 sq ft (often around $1.8-$2.0 million). So it can make lots of sense to just go for the bigger house, even if you don't really need the extra space.

Lots of sense how? You need to heat, cool, and maintain twice as much house. You have to furnish twice as much house. Why would you do that if you didn't actually really want more space?

I mean it's one thing if you want more space, many people do for many reasons. But I would never be like "oh I don't need more space but why not, I'll buy a house twice as large because the price is the same anyways". Like, even if they tell you you get a free second entree with the purchase of one entree, it doesn't mean it's always the best idea to just eat them both.

You should always get the second free entree and take it home for leftovers for the next day.