Check out Four Brothers and also District 495. They might be great options for you.

OP here.

Just to be clear. I own the land already. This house is for me, or my kids in the future. I am very picky about quality, and esthetics. I want a smaller house that is proportional to my lot, not a gaudy monstruosity that's built to the limit of my property. I also love to garden, and the house has to go with the garden I'm planning.

I don't mind at all not maximizing the price I get per sq ft. It's just that I was wondering whether firms in this area would even consider a client like me. And secondarily, I'd like to not be completely fleeced, even if I can afford a nice caliber of house

I am also not concerned with resale, at all. My area has always had more buyers than sellers. Everyone bought up all the tiny decrepit homes already, the entry-level market is completely gone. A newer, smaller home would be bought in an instant... not for 5M, like other homes in my area, but for a solid price nonetheless.

Thanks, everyone, for your input!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The builder has entered the chat. Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing "smart" about building more space than you need. There's utilities to consider (do you want to consume more energy and pollute more?) and property taxes. And there's just the sheer look of the thing. I find smaller houses way more charming.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Resale is always a concern unless OP will live forever or doesn’t have any offspring. If you are an older person planning to age in place you probably want to consider extra basement apartment space or a live-in caretaker suite with their own kitchenette.

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

for suburban areas it’s prudent to build 5K minimum for a new build or 4K for a smaller lot. In urban areas, 2500 is generous if you are at liberty to knock down existing older home or gut renovate + addition. Also consider homes around you. You don’t want to be the biggest or the smallest house on the street.

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