Who exactly needs 7,000 square feet to live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the answer to your question "Who exactly needs 7k feet" is apparently "everyone in Arlington."

As a result, the county is gradually becoming uglier and uglier. Nothing but gigantic box houses and power lines everywhere. Houses smashed into each other and no yards. Hideous architecture, too.

Lot coverage limits prevents what you are talking about, but hope you are enjoying those Montgomery county taxes!

[Anonymous]

We have about 9000 soft but the family is large, and we use probably all of the rooms 80% of the time.

[Anonymous]

7,000 sf seems so ostentatious. All of our houses are 3,000 sf or less, and it works fine for us. Main house and beach house each around 3,000. Lake house and Mountain cabin 2200 and 2400 sf.

This is parody, right?

We live two in a 5500 sq foot home. Currently with one adult kid who's been with us just under a year, and previously with a parent who was with us for a year. Having the swing space(s) works for us. We rarely entertain, apart from immediate family, so the assumption that we have a large house for prestige or status is silly projection. Moreover, our current house (in a high end suburb) cost only 20% more than the selling price for our previous 2000 sq foot house (in a closer-in community that people here on DCUM drool over), so it's not an extravagance.

One of the benefits of having a very spacious primary residence is that it offers enough variety of rooms and settings that one doesn't feel the same need to get a country house (or two, apparently) for a change of scenery -- with all the attendant financial and environmental costs that entails. We spend our weekends and summers at home; lots of people with smaller homes spend their weekends and summers driving to their beach or mountain houses (or rentals) and then come on this site to lecture about the environmental irrresponsibility of a larger house footprint. You sort of made the same point I intended to but in a bass-ackwards kind of way.

[Anonymous]

We have 6300 square feet including the walkout basement. We use it all.
4 bedrooms upstairs with a laundry room and tiny tv room. An office, a playroom, living room, family room, dining room and kitchen on main level. Basement has a rec room, exercise area, tv area with couch, another office, guest bedroom and bath that my mother lives in along with a kitchenette and storage area.
There are five of us and we feel like we don't have enough space. Three adults who are home all day really spread out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the answer to your question "Who exactly needs 7k feet" is apparently "everyone in Arlington."

As a result, the county is gradually becoming uglier and uglier. Nothing but gigantic box houses and power lines everywhere. Houses smashed into each other and no yards. Hideous architecture, too.

Lot coverage limits prevents what you are talking about, but hope you are enjoying those Montgomery county taxes!

I live in Ballston, and I know what I see.

[Anonymous]

Who exactly needs 7,000 square feet to live?

Virtually everyone -- probably even Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk at some point -- has had the experience of seeing some luxury product that's beyond one's reach and after a second of eye-popping, concluding "eh, that really wouldn't work for me anyway" (where would I keep a hundred-foot yacht?). But it takes a special kind of stunted emotional intelligence -- so depressingly prevalent here on DCUM -- to start a irate thread demanding "What kind of person would want that anyway?!" Your own preferences aren't universal. And in most cases, they aren't any 'better' or more virtuous than other people's, much as you may have convinced yourself otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who exactly needs 7,000 square feet to live?

Virtually everyone -- probably even Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk at some point -- has had the experience of seeing some luxury product that's beyond one's reach and after a second of eye-popping, concluding "eh, that really wouldn't work for me anyway" (where would I keep a hundred-foot yacht?). But it takes a special kind of stunted emotional intelligence -- so depressingly prevalent here on DCUM -- to start an irate thread demanding "What kind of person would want that anyway?!" Your own preferences aren't universal. And in most cases, they aren't any 'better' or more virtuous than other people's, much as you may have convinced yourself otherwise.

I am not OP. And no 7,000 sf just is way too much. I’m in 4,000 now and most of the time, we question it.

Most of us aren’t Jeff Bezos and have bills to pay. So the gas, electric and water bills add up.

Some of you live in la-la land.

[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.

Most of the inflated sqft you see tossed around here are inclusive of basements and garages and probably some outdoor spaces. Builders are very creative with square footages. Ignore the basements/garages then you're knocking 2k or more off the square footage and then suddenly it isn't so bad.

The reason housing is so big these days is because builders realize it doesn't cost much more to add another 1-2k square foot to the plan and people feel that they need the extra square footage to justify spending so much money on the house.

But it's not necessarily more inefficient. Older houses like mine are definitely more inefficient than the latest new houses with vast empty rooms.

Wait how are they getting away with including unfinished basements and garages included with the sq ft?? I don’t think I’ve seen that. Or maybe I’ve been deceived!

[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.

Most of the inflated sqft you see tossed around here are inclusive of basements and garages and probably some outdoor spaces. Builders are very creative with square footages. Ignore the basements/garages then you're knocking 2k or more off the square footage and then suddenly it isn't so bad.

The reason housing is so big these days is because builders realize it doesn't cost much more to add another 1-2k square foot to the plan and people feel that they need the extra square footage to justify spending so much money on the house.

But it's not necessarily more inefficient. Older houses like mine are definitely more inefficient than the latest new houses with vast empty rooms.

Wait how are they getting away with including unfinished basements and garages included with the sq ft?? I don’t think I’ve seen that. Or maybe I’ve been deceived!

The pp was a little off but the point still stands. Some people are counting finished basements and attics in the square footage. A finished basement makes a big difference re livability. Garages and unfinished spaces can't be counted for real estate purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most of the inflated sqft you see tossed around here are inclusive of basements and garages and probably some outdoor spaces. Builders are very creative with square footages. Ignore the basements/garages then you're knocking 2k or more off the square footage and then suddenly it isn't so bad.

The reason housing is so big these days is because builders realize it doesn't cost much more to add another 1-2k square foot to the plan and people feel that they need the extra square footage to justify spending so much money on the house.

But it's not necessarily more inefficient. Older houses like mine are definitely more inefficient than the latest new houses with vast empty rooms.

Wait how are they getting away with including unfinished basements and garages included with the sq ft?? I don’t think I’ve seen that. Or maybe I’ve been deceived!

The pp was a little off but the point still stands. Some people are counting finished basements and attics in the square footage. A finished basement makes a big difference re livability. Garages and unfinished spaces can't be counted for real estate purposes.

Oh yeah finished basements and attic spaces totally should count as square footage.
Nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

We are two adults and a cat in 3000 square feet and it feels perfect for us. We both WFH most of the week, so each have offices. That leaves an extra room for guests when family visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who exactly needs 7,000 square feet to live?

Virtually everyone -- probably even Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk at some point -- has had the experience of seeing some luxury product that's beyond one's reach and after a second of eye-popping, concluding "eh, that really wouldn't work for me anyway" (where would I keep a hundred-foot yacht?). But it takes a special kind of stunted emotional intelligence -- so depressingly prevalent here on DCUM -- to start an irate thread demanding "What kind of person would want that anyway?!" Your own preferences aren't universal. And in most cases, they aren't any 'better' or more virtuous than other people's, much as you may have convinced yourself otherwise.

NP. From an energy footprint point of view, 7,000 is indeed less virtuous. Pretty sure you’re a MAGA and this still start you spitting at your screen, but it’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

Every Hollywood star seems to need at least that much.

[Anonymous]

Me

[Anonymous]

I don’t know. This house is 16000 sq feet and I think I would love every damn square foot of it.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2650-Benedict-Canyon-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA-90210/20532036_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare