Large lot is 0.20 acres

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Average lot size in urban DC is 5000 sq ft

That’s misleading. What’s the median?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

OP here. Neighborhood is in Bethesda.

The absurdity was not only the word, but that the agent implied that it was enough space to build a 10,000 square foot McMansion with a pool and a tennis court and a 5 car garage. My childhood home is on 0.2 acres. We couldn't have done even one of those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

OP here. Neighborhood is in Bethesda.

The absurdity was not only the word, but that the agent implied that it was enough space to build a 10,000 square foot McMansion with a pool and a tennis court and a 5 car garage. My childhood home is on 0.2 acres. We couldn't have done even one of those things.

You sound horrible.

[Anonymous]

In urban DC (Capital Hill, Adams Morgan, Logan, Georgetown) It is rare to find a 2,000 sq ft lot for under $1 M

[Anonymous]

Is it “enormous” relative to the immediate neighborhood? 3-acre lots available 10 miles away are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

OP here. Neighborhood is in Bethesda.

The absurdity was not only the word, but that the agent implied that it was enough space to build a 10,000 square foot McMansion with a pool and a tennis court and a 5 car garage. My childhood home is on 0.2 acres. We couldn't have done even one of those things.

Sounds more like you inferred it rather than an agent implying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

I get relativity. I also don't want to live in a trumpian, post truth world. I know words have meanings that don't change just because we want them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

I get relativity. I also don't want to live in a trumpian, post truth world. I know words have meanings that don't change just because we want them too.

Now you have really proven that you don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

I get relativity. I also don't want to live in a trumpian, post truth world. I know words have meanings that don't change just because we want them too.

Words do have meanings, but always in a context. This is semantics 101. Literally, "enormous" actually means that something is outside the norm. It literally implies that its meaning, when it's used to describe an object, has to be understood in the context of other objects, such as other lots in the same neighborhood (not lots anywhere in the US or even in this city).

It's pretty funny that you should bring up Trump's "alternative facts" here to try and defend your case. Trump was wrong about the "enormous" size (or whatever words were used) of his inauguration crowd precisely because it was in fact so much smaller than President Obama's, and even those of other presidents before him. If everyone before him had had much smaller crowds than Trump, he would have been right, but since his crowd was so small relative to Obama's, his claim was factually wrong and ridiculous.

A descriptive adjective such as "enormous" is not the same as an objective fact, such as the number of square feet in a lot, or the number of people at an inauguration. Its meaning depends on the context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

I get relativity. I also don't want to live in a trumpian, post truth world. I know words have meanings that don't change just because we want them too.

Words do have meanings, but always in a context. This is semantics 101. Literally, "enormous" actually means that something is outside the norm. It literally implies that its meaning, when it's used to describe an object, has to be understood in the context of other objects, such as other lots in the same neighborhood (not lots anywhere in the US or even in this city).

It's pretty funny that you should bring up Trump's "alternative facts" here to try and defend your case. Trump was wrong about the "enormous" size (or whatever words were used) of his inauguration crowd precisely because it was in fact so much smaller than President Obama's, and even those of other presidents before him. If everyone before him had had much smaller crowds than Trump, he would have been right, but since his crowd was so small relative to Obama's, his claim was factually wrong and ridiculous.

A descriptive adjective such as "enormous" is not the same as an objective fact, such as the number of square feet in a lot, or the number of people at an inauguration. Its meaning depends on the context.

Meanings depend on what people accept them to mean, and yes context has a part in that. A property being above average is not the same as a property being enormous.

[Anonymous]

OP, I totally agree that describing a .2 acre lot in Bethesda as enormous is ridiculous. I think that's barely above the standard minimum lot size.

That kind of characterization would make me mistrust pretty much every descriptor the agent offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I totally agree that describing a .2 acre lot in Bethesda as enormous is ridiculous. I think that's barely above the standard minimum lot size.

That kind of characterization would make me mistrust pretty much every descriptor the agent offered.

Yes, for Bethesda it is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be enormous in Manhattan. Not enormous in dc. Large, yes, enormous no. Whole swaths of DC are practically suburban.

It can be enormous for one DC neighborhood but not for another. If you had a rowhouse on a 0.2 acre lot, it would be an enormous lot.

No row/townhouse anywhere in the US is on nearly a quarter acre. We're talking SFH and if you are in DC in the market for a SFH, you are already a 1%er.

The rowhouse example was a hypothetical to get the point across that it depends on the neighborhood. If you go to Redfin and filter for minimum lot size of 8,000sf, you will see that even in SFH neighborhoods in DC, there is very little. Mostly in the wealthiest neighborhoods WOTP, but almost nothing in AU Park, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, North Cleveland Park, Wakefield. EOTP they are few and far between. So for those SFH neighborhoods, it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to call a .2 acre lot "enormous" in the context of those neighborhoods.

I live in a SFH in DC on .26ac and would not describe my hard as enormous. That's just silly.

What neighborhood? What's the typical lot size there?

We have no idea what neighborhood OP's agent was talking about, but if it's a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are half the size, it is perfectly reasonable for her to convey the idea that this is a really big lot for that neighborhood, even using the word "enormous". I doubt she would have described it that way if that size was nothing unusual in whatever neighborhood OP is looking, but without knowing in what context the agent was talking, we have no idea whether the agent was being silly or whether OP just has different standards for lot size because she comes from somewhere where lots are typically bigger.

Forest Hills. Typical lot size is like mine and above. Even if typical lot size were 2,000sqft, my yard would not be ENORMOUS. We are fortunate to have any yard in DC, but enormous it is not. If it were enormous mu midd could practice their lacrosse in the backyard without hitting a house or car.

Here are 3 for sale now:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3051-Albemarle-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/453878_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4627-30th-St-NW-Washington-DC-20008/458076_zpid/

So obviously, it's not enormous for your neighborhood.

But it sounds like you really don't get the concept of relativity, and are applying an absolute standard. No need to argue anymore on that premise.

I get relativity. I also don't want to live in a trumpian, post truth world. I know words have meanings that don't change just because we want them too.

Words do have meanings, but always in a context. This is semantics 101. Literally, "enormous" actually means that something is outside the norm. It literally implies that its meaning, when it's used to describe an object, has to be understood in the context of other objects, such as other lots in the same neighborhood (not lots anywhere in the US or even in this city).

It's pretty funny that you should bring up Trump's "alternative facts" here to try and defend your case. Trump was wrong about the "enormous" size (or whatever words were used) of his inauguration crowd precisely because it was in fact so much smaller than President Obama's, and even those of other presidents before him. If everyone before him had had much smaller crowds than Trump, he would have been right, but since his crowd was so small relative to Obama's, his claim was factually wrong and ridiculous.

A descriptive adjective such as "enormous" is not the same as an objective fact, such as the number of square feet in a lot, or the number of people at an inauguration. Its meaning depends on the context.

Meanings depend on what people accept them to mean, and yes context has a part in that. A property being above average is not the same as a property being enormous.

More than twice as big (if that were the case) would not be "above average", it would be outside the norm. There are people who would in that case use the term "enormous". Clearly, it doesn't apply to OP's situation, but you cannot take an absolute lot size and declare that in no context whatsoever could it ever be called "enormous". Just because you cannot accept that term ever to be applied to a .2 acre lot, doesn't mean other people wouldn't in certain contexts, and they are not "post-truthers". You aren't the measure of all things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a typical lot in the neighborhood you are searching for House is approx 5,000 sq feet?
Yes, a .2 acre lot is indeed enormous.
Duh

+1