Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Okay, so maybe 4ft I don't know. That is the house. It is hard to tell, but in the last picture (# 30) you can see how close it is to the back fence.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2724-1st-St-S-22204/home/52389921

holy crap. that is ugly.

but 721 N Edgewood on the scroll below shows a very tasteful, size-appropriate 4,000sq foot home/renovation. I think people don't have a problem with these...it's the massive ugly ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

come check out my neighborhood. Certain builders/investors with deep pockets apparently don't need to obey the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Okay, so maybe 4ft I don't know. That is the house. It is hard to tell, but in the last picture (# 30) you can see how close it is to the back fence.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2724-1st-St-S-22204/home/52389921

holy crap. that is ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Okay, so maybe 4ft I don't know. That is the house. It is hard to tell, but in the last picture (# 30) you can see how close it is to the back fence.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2724-1st-St-S-22204/home/52389921

Anonymous wrote:


You don't know what you are talking bout

I think you left off the word "Willis"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Anonymous wrote:"Hate" is not the right word, but many new homes look like playmobil to me that I find aesthetically unappealing. I like brick walls and good roofing. Further, a 2000 sqf home is large, 3000 very large, the megalomania of even bigger houses is puzzling to me.

I also find that the trend to open floor plans has gone over the top - a kitchen does not belong into the middle of a living room.

You don't know what you are talking bout

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

Anonymous wrote:"Hate" is not the right word, but many new homes look like playmobil to me that I find aesthetically unappealing. I like brick walls and good roofing. Further, a 2000 sqf home is large, 3000 very large, the megalomania of even bigger houses is puzzling to me.

I also find that the trend to open floor plans has gone over the top - a kitchen does not belong into the middle of a living room.

Btw, standard new homes and modern architecture are of course two different things. Good quality modern architecture can be great (although, at least for me, not the types that consist only of windows and grant you no privacy in your own home).

"Hate" is not the right word, but many new homes look like playmobil to me that I find aesthetically unappealing. I like brick walls and good roofing. Further, a 2000 sqf home is large, 3000 very large, the megalomania of even bigger houses is puzzling to me.

I also find that the trend to open floor plans has gone over the top - a kitchen does not belong into the middle of a living room.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

So you'd have some yard and not look weird. These are 3000sq foot homes, colonials being knocked down that were perfectly sized for the lot. Squeezing a 6,000 sq foot with 6 bedrooms is crazy. My parents hated the cleaning and upkeep of our large home and downsized . Been there, done that.

I'm not from Dallas where bigger=better.

Just cause you think it looks weird doesn't mean that it looks weird to someone else.

I have less upkeep with our new larger home than I did with my old 1500 SF rambler.

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

So you'd have some yard and not look weird. These are 3000sq foot homes, colonials being knocked down that were perfectly sized for the lot. Squeezing a 6,000 sq foot with 6 bedrooms is crazy. My parents hated the cleaning and upkeep of our large home and downsized . Been there, done that.

I'm not from Dallas where bigger=better.

I have several friends who live in homes that are over 100 years old. They are truly historic homes. (old town, cp hill etc) they are beautiful. But the maintenance is constant and very expensive. There is also the historic restrictions which can really be a problem when the restrictions themselves are out dated. It takes a certain kind of person. And a lot of extra money helps. Two friends sold and moved to new construction. As for homes built in the 50s or 70s being historic. Well if you think so.

The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Anonymous wrote:I dont' hate them and would live in one if I could afford it. I do feel frustrated that all the new homes HAVE to be liek 4K sq feet or something ridiculous. Can't they make 2K sq foot homes that cost like 600K or something. I jsut don't get why they all have to be 1 million plus.

Agreed!!! All the new homes in my Clarendon neighborhood are minimum of 5 bedrooms---and usually 6 or more. Wtf? The reason--if you knock down a $900k house--you need to build bigger to make a profit. They turn around and market for $1.7+. The majority of people don't want that much house . The type of person that likes close-in, walkability usually doesn't also like mammoth homes. The above $1.5milliiob homes tend to sit longer on the market.