Who exactly needs 7,000 square feet to live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one “needs” a house this big, but I don’t begrudge those who choose to own one.

+1

I don't understand the people who come to random message boards to complain about people who do better or have more. Look at yourself.

I actually like the house. It's too big for me, but I would love a ne level version of this, with a distinct and separate wing for bedrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For 7,000 sq feet, this house layout feels small, especially the area around the kitchen.

It isn't hard to fill that amount of space with proper storage, 2 offices (everyone works from home now!) a guest suite, an au pair suite, gym, theater, etc.

I would have done a 2nd masters downstairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people are into big houses. Some people are into cars. Some people are into clothes, handbags, or other status symbols. Some people are into food. Some people are into vacations. Why judge?

Because it is horrific for the environment. It's terrible use of land. It requires massive amounts of energy waste. There are no redeeming values for conspicuous consumption.

We wanted a new build in a specific neighborhood. They didn’t build anything smaller than our 6,800 sq ft house. We have the money to buy what we wanted so we did. New homes don’t waste a huge amount of energy because they are built to be more energy efficient. Analysis from EIA's most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) shows that U.S. homes built in 2000 and later consume only 2% more energy on average than homes built prior to 2000, despite being on average 30% larger. Also, “it’s a waste of land” is your opinion, not based in truth. Did you just wander over from the Missing Middle thread? You sound jealous.

Bigger homes require more materials, dum dum. You think all of that wood, glass, steel, walking, roofing, etc. etc. comes without energy input too?

Huge homes are a waste of land, period. Especially when they're on small lots like that. They leave no space for trees, plants for pollinators, and are generally devoid of anything living to support the environment. It's just one massive paved lot with tiny amounts of grass.

Terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have 8,000 sqft for our family of 4. We have 2 guest rooms, 2 family rooms (one for kids, one for adults), 2 home offices, and a workout room. There are indeed some rooms of the house that are not entered every day.

How is it a "family room" if the family is segregated by age/family role?

DP.

Because that is the common term for the room where people hang out and spend time not eating/sleeping/working/bathing. There is one room that tends to be where adults hang out and the other is where kids hang out. Ever heard of a playroom? A living room v. den?

What is the point you are really trying to make?

That it's very sad that the PP considers grownups to be one "family" and her own children to not be part of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people are into big houses. Some people are into cars. Some people are into clothes, handbags, or other status symbols. Some people are into food. Some people are into vacations. Why judge?

Because it is horrific for the environment. It's terrible use of land. It requires massive amounts of energy waste. There are no redeeming values for conspicuous consumption.

We wanted a new build in a specific neighborhood. They didn’t build anything smaller than our 6,800 sq ft house. We have the money to buy what we wanted so we did. New homes don’t waste a huge amount of energy because they are built to be more energy efficient. Analysis from EIA's most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) shows that U.S. homes built in 2000 and later consume only 2% more energy on average than homes built prior to 2000, despite being on average 30% larger. Also, “it’s a waste of land” is your opinion, not based in truth. Did you just wander over from the Missing Middle thread? You sound jealous.

Bigger homes require more materials, dum dum. You think all of that wood, glass, steel, walking, roofing, etc. etc. comes without energy input too?

Huge homes are a waste of land, period. Especially when they're on small lots like that. They leave no space for trees, plants for pollinators, and are generally devoid of anything living to support the environment. It's just one massive paved lot with tiny amounts of grass.

Terrible.

Ok bomer

[Anonymous]

Diane Feinstein did. Or nearly so but when you add up all her homes, I am sure it’s pretty big.

https://www.wfp.com/sales/detail/756-l-761-dcdc2126652/3300-nebraska-ave-nw-spring-valley-washington-dc-20016

[Anonymous]

I would never buy a house that didn't have a yard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have 8,000 sqft for our family of 4. We have 2 guest rooms, 2 family rooms (one for kids, one for adults), 2 home offices, and a workout room. There are indeed some rooms of the house that are not entered every day.

How is it a "family room" if the family is segregated by age/family role?

DP.

Because that is the common term for the room where people hang out and spend time not eating/sleeping/working/bathing. There is one room that tends to be where adults hang out and the other is where kids hang out. Ever heard of a playroom? A living room v. den?

What is the point you are really trying to make?

That it's very sad that the PP considers grownups to be one "family" and her own children to not be part of that.

Dumbest Comment of the Day Award!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$40K a year for property taxes? No thanks.

wow! Is that true?

[Anonymous]

The nine bathrooms is extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people are into big houses. Some people are into cars. Some people are into clothes, handbags, or other status symbols. Some people are into food. Some people are into vacations. Why judge?

Because it is horrific for the environment. It's terrible use of land. It requires massive amounts of energy waste. There are no redeeming values for conspicuous consumption.

We wanted a new build in a specific neighborhood. They didn’t build anything smaller than our 6,800 sq ft house. We have the money to buy what we wanted so we did. New homes don’t waste a huge amount of energy because they are built to be more energy efficient. Analysis from EIA's most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) shows that U.S. homes built in 2000 and later consume only 2% more energy on average than homes built prior to 2000, despite being on average 30% larger. Also, “it’s a waste of land” is your opinion, not based in truth. Did you just wander over from the Missing Middle thread? You sound jealous.

Bigger homes require more materials, dum dum. You think all of that wood, glass, steel, walking, roofing, etc. etc. comes without energy input too?

Huge homes are a waste of land, period. Especially when they're on small lots like that. They leave no space for trees, plants for pollinators, and are generally devoid of anything living to support the environment. It's just one massive paved lot with tiny amounts of grass.

Terrible.

But you love when the lot is filled by a six plex. Who is dumb here? You, who lives in a crappy little house outside the beltway, because you can’t afford anything else? Or me in my 3 million dollar house because I’m smart enough to make enough to afford it. Jealousy is so sad.

[Anonymous]

It is depressing to me how many people in this thread are like "I have a huge house because I can" or "oh well this is too much house for us but it's what they are building now so it's fine."

We can afford way more house than we live in but don't because it is a waste of materials, land, heating and cooling. We only have one child. Anything over 2500 sq ft just feels cavernous to us, and I hate having a bunch of unused rooms. We bought a small house with a ton of character in a great neighborhood, updated the kitchen and baths, and it's gorgeous and comfortable and what we need. We looked at house that were 4500 and 5000 sq ft and they just depressed me.

I feel like a house that size would just encourage us to spend more money on furniture and other crap we don't need. As it is, we can all spend time in different parts of the house on our own and have privacy, and can still do this if we have house guests. What on earth else do we need?

I grew up one of four and the biggest house my family owned (and we were well off) was probably around 5000 sq ft. And my parents moved out when we all left because it was way too much house for two people. Now they have a 3 bedroom that's around 2000 sf but has a big garden and access to walking trails.

I don't understand why people feel like owning a giant empty house is some mark of success. It's sad and wasteful, weirdos. Maybe use some of your money to buy taste and brains.

[Anonymous]

I personally don't have a problem with the size. It's the wackiness, the poor materials, the lack of style. There are big, gorgeous homes in this world but not in Arlington.

https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-768-ef9rr4/triplex-paris-il-75007

https://www.redfin.com/NM/Santa-Fe/9-Deer-Dancer-87506/home/114076002

https://www.redfin.com/CO/Aspen/728-E-Francis-St-81611/unit-470-N-Spring-Street/home/182118024

[Anonymous]

We have a large house, and only 3 people living in it. It was DH's idea, because he wanted to host our employees on occasion.

Although I resisted it initially, it's turned out to be a good thing. We always have a lot of family visiting. We host our large and extended family many times a year without everyone being on top of each other. We are the hangout house, and since we're the strictest parents among all of DD's friends, we're comfortable/happy with that arrangement.

It's basically the only luxury we have allowed ourselves, and it works for our lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

There are a fair number of people on DCUM who talk about the benefits of multigenerational living, keeping families close, etc.

Well, the o my way you can do this is if someone has a big house. There has to be a hub.

And personally, I think it's a good reason to have a big house if you can afford one. I'd like to be able to offer my aging relatives a safe, happy place to live, or recover from a major health incident. I'd like to provide a place where my kids can bring home friends from
College, or if they need a place to live for a few month in between jobs or school. To host fundraisers for non profits I support or reunions of old friends

It's not just vanity, it's facilitating and supporting things that are important to you. A big house serves a lot of purposes.