Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

The OP doesn’t want that large of a house. A smaller house would have great resale value in this area. Lots of downsizers still want a SFH here, and the only way to do that is buy a 50 year old fixer upper.

No one is going to pay more for a smaller house maybe if its on like 5 acres of land but even then no

She isn't asking them to pay more for a smaller house. She is building the house for herself. Resale isn't the concern.

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

No one asked you. I'm with OP and like smaller homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

The OP doesn’t want that large of a house. A smaller house would have great resale value in this area. Lots of downsizers still want a SFH here, and the only way to do that is buy a 50 year old fixer upper.

No one is going to pay more for a smaller house maybe if its on like 5 acres of land but even then no

This., Unless people cannot afford utilities and RE taxes on a big house, then smaller house makes sense but no way people will pay more for it than a similar quality/age home on the similar lot and same neighborhood with a big house. That’s the point. Also, small house is still the same amount of maintenance when it comes to the outdoors when it’s sitting on the same lot. Which is why moving to a smaller SFH isnt’ really much of a downsizing, because people want to avoid the headaches of maintaining a standalone house and its outdoor spaces. People downsize to TH or a condo if wanting carefree lifestyle, unless they are into gardening or have extra disposable income to spend on services.

I remember this house room from my neighborhood, sold 2 years ago.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2015-N-Taylor-St-Arlington-VA-22207/12064570_zpid/

Not a bad price for 2300 sf. It would probably be 2 million now.

I don’t disagree with the economic argument about why it doesn’t make sense to build small houses, but it is overstated, particularly by the builders. There is a market for smaller houses and people who are willing to pay a disproportionately higher $/sf. But it would be dumb for a profit oriented business to do this, they’d be better served by building the big house obviously. As a consumer, if it’s what you want and can do it right and are willing to deal with some (not necessarily enormous) loss in resale, it could be worth it to you.

There are a lot of overhead costs to building a house of any size. This is the issue. Site preparation, foundation, landscaping, etc. It’s not all about square footage and more building materials and human hours to build a bigger home. People build bigger because they want resale value and also maybe some think about multi-generational living these days too or just want a ton of “leisure space” for various activities instead of how we used to live in the past with multi-purpose rooms (like one basement for all the recreational things, kids, movies, etc)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

The OP doesn’t want that large of a house. A smaller house would have great resale value in this area. Lots of downsizers still want a SFH here, and the only way to do that is buy a 50 year old fixer upper.

No one is going to pay more for a smaller house maybe if its on like 5 acres of land but even then no

Anonymous wrote:I think the neighborhood, street, lot, high quality materials and design, and good landscaping are key if you go under 3000 sf.

It will cost a lot to build and probably closer to a 5000 sf average build, but could command a similar price as resale as a premium product. There is a market that wants a higher quality, smaller house but it indeed does need to be done better and more thoughtfully than the average or even above average new build.

no one would pay the same for less sf at the end of the day everything drywall and behind is the same you can fill it with shit and it would still be worth more as its the size and structure which is more important

If 5000sqft cost 1.2M to build, then 2500sqft will cost 1M, will you still be interested?

I think the neighborhood, street, lot, high quality materials and design, and good landscaping are key if you go under 3000 sf.

It will cost a lot to build and probably closer to a 5000 sf average build, but could command a similar price as resale as a premium product. There is a market that wants a higher quality, smaller house but it indeed does need to be done better and more thoughtfully than the average or even above average new build.

Is Micky Simpson still around? They had smaller bungalow floorplans

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

The OP doesn’t want that large of a house. A smaller house would have great resale value in this area. Lots of downsizers still want a SFH here, and the only way to do that is buy a 50 year old fixer upper.

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course builders are willing to build you a modest house. The real question is, would you be willing to pay the same price for your modest house where you could pay the same amount and get a 3 story monstrosity.

There are a lot of fixed costs in building a house that aren't cheaper bc you are building a smaller house.

+1 It would be better to either build a large home or buy a smaller home that's close to what you want and renovate it.

For years, my sister and her husband clung to this idea of building the small retirement home of their dreams. They're finally seeing the light that this makes no financial sense.

Just come up with a short list of your must haves and see if you can find something close enough that you can make into something that you love. Otherwise you're going to spend an extra $800K to have whatever specific little details that you're fantasizing about and you'll lose money on the resale. Make sure you're not buying in a tear down neighborhood or else everything you put into it will be a bad investment.

Anonymous wrote:Of course but it won't be much cheaper than building a 5000 sq foot house.

This is exactly why we ended up building a "monstrosity." I ultimately determined that there was no point in building a "charming" home towered over on all sides by 3 story new builds, and I wanted to get my money out of it in the not-too-distant future.

You’re better off buying a modest house rather than building one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would build no smaller than 4000sf. 2500 is terrible

How rude and stupid. I’m wealthy but I live a quiet life and prefer not to entertain large groups. 2500 sq ft is already quite big enough for my family’s needs!

It would be smarter just to build a larger house and not use some of the space. Resale value will be much better if you build something that is in range for the market you are in.