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.

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.

I agree with this. They are just building straight up or straight down. It's small potatoes to add the loft level and below-grade space and attached garages are incorrect added to the total SF calculation.

+1

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.

I agree with this. They are just building straight up or straight down. It's small potatoes to add the loft level and below-grade space and attached garages are incorrect added to the total SF calculation.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why?

This is everything that’s wrong with real estate in Arlington.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3554-Military-Rd-Arlington-VA-22207/12060213_zpid/

I don’t but I don’t begrudge others who do. You sound jealous, OP. Unless you live like a monk, just life and let live.

There's a lot of space between living like a monk and spending $4.4 million on a 7,000 sq ft house. My family of 5 lives very comfortably - not at all monklike - in our 2,000 sq ft house.

Anonymous wrote:
Why?

This is everything that’s wrong with real estate in Arlington.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3554-Military-Rd-Arlington-VA-22207/12060213_zpid/

You are asking the wrong question.
If i’m f**ng paying 4M for a house, it better be 7000 sq ft and more. Even 7000 sq ft isn’t enough.

Your question should be: why are we paying 1.5M for tiny 1500 sq ft homes?

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.

We wanted a new build in a specific neighborhood. They didn’t build anything smaller than our 6,800 sq ft house. We have the money to buy what we wanted so we did. New homes don’t waste a huge amount of energy because they are built to be more energy efficient. Analysis from EIA's most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) shows that U.S. homes built in 2000 and later consume only 2% more energy on average than homes built prior to 2000, despite being on average 30% larger. Also, “it’s a waste of land” is your opinion, not based in truth. Did you just wander over from the Missing Middle thread? You sound jealous.

Bigger homes require more materials, dum dum. You think all of that wood, glass, steel, walking, roofing, etc. etc. comes without energy input too?

Huge homes are a waste of land, period. Especially when they're on small lots like that. They leave no space for trees, plants for pollinators, and are generally devoid of anything living to support the environment. It's just one massive paved lot with tiny amounts of grass.

Terrible.

But you love when the lot is filled by a six plex. Who is dumb here? You, who lives in a crappy little house outside the beltway, because you can’t afford anything else? Or me in my 3 million dollar house because I’m smart enough to make enough to afford it. Jealousy is so sad.

Not PP but not everybody pointing out the environmental problems caused by excessive space requirements is jealous. A lot of people could easily afford a space consuming huge house but prefer as intelligent human beings appropriate residential buildings in areas served by public transportation. I can affirm you, it's possible to survive in such an environment.

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.

We wanted a new build in a specific neighborhood. They didn’t build anything smaller than our 6,800 sq ft house. We have the money to buy what we wanted so we did. New homes don’t waste a huge amount of energy because they are built to be more energy efficient. Analysis from EIA's most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) shows that U.S. homes built in 2000 and later consume only 2% more energy on average than homes built prior to 2000, despite being on average 30% larger. Also, “it’s a waste of land” is your opinion, not based in truth. Did you just wander over from the Missing Middle thread? You sound jealous.

This was us too, essentially. We didn't set out looking for a new build, but there was really limited inventory when we were looking (2021) and everything that was the size we were looking for required renovations that we didn't want to live through. So we ended up with a new build, and the new builds were all huge. We have spaces we don't use much, but we've also become the gathering/holiday house as older generations of our family have moved and downsized, and we love to entertain and it's great for that. We also have elementary aged kids, so we've got a lot of years to use it and it's fun for them to have friends over. In the grand scheme of environmental issues, I'm not feeling terribly guilty about buying a house that was already being built and that's almost certainly more energy efficient than the 1940s house we moved out of.

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 they are destroying what's left of our green space just because people in the US always want more more more. Complete excess.

Patty, your solar panels and your Tesla…aren’t saving the planet like you think they are. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Exactly. It has been common knowledge (and before that, common sense) for years that the greenest thing to do is continue to repair your modest older car. We could have all been doing it.

Not true.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/greenhouse-gas-houses-alberta-1.7077760

What did you look at?

We wanted to look at the energy consumption by households across Edmonton and see whether it's the housing topology that's leading to greenhouse gas emissions versus transportation vehicles that they use.

What did you find?

What we found is buildings produce about 45 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than personal transportation, which is opposite of what we think.

We also found that single-family detached homes consume more energy than any other type. When we look at our suburbs and neighbourhoods on the outskirts of Edmonton, they're generally more energy efficient.

But per capita greenhouse gas emission is much higher in the suburbs. And this is partly because of the increase in floor area for heating and cooling purposes. If you look at the suburbs, the single detached homes have much larger floor area, about 1,900 sq. ft compared to more mature neighbourhoods where the average is about 1,400 sq. ft.

There's a 40 per cent increase in the floor area which has to be heated and nowadays, it has to be cooled as well. A bigger house is going to cost you more, therefore more greenhouse gases.

https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/news-articles/homes-do-more-damage-to-climate-than-cars/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/13/climate/climate-footprint-map-neighborhood.html

https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/publications

~Sustainability SME

This is a small lot on a busy road. Who cares what they build? This is Arlington, it's either going to be a single family home or a multifamily home and either way the builder will use up the entire building envelope.

I agree the kitchen is subpar for that amount of square footage and price but the layout is odd overall and I'm sure there's a story behind that.

Our house is a little over 6000 if you include the basement. Family of 4; 6br 6 bath and we had live in nanny for 7 years.
Used every foot of it.

Now that kids are tweens having a home theater room is clutch. Especially during Covid times.
It is really nice to have family movie nights and the kids will entertain their friends often at our home/gaming or movies.

That house is really ugly.

The lights in that sketch are the same ones in my middles schooler’s cafeteria. So I would at least want a better design for my 7000 sq ft!

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 they are destroying what's left of our green space just because people in the US always want more more more. Complete excess.

Patty, your solar panels and your Tesla…aren’t saving the planet like you think they are. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Exactly. It has been common knowledge (and before that, common sense) for years that the greenest thing to do is continue to repair your modest older car. We could have all been doing it.

Anonymous wrote:There are a fair number of people on DCUM who talk about the benefits of multigenerational living, keeping families close, etc.

Well, the o my way you can do this is if someone has a big house. There has to be a hub.

And personally, I think it's a good reason to have a big house if you can afford one. I'd like to be able to offer my aging relatives a safe, happy place to live, or recover from a major health incident. I'd like to provide a place where my kids can bring home friends from
College, or if they need a place to live for a few month in between jobs or school. To host fundraisers for non profits I support or reunions of old friends

It's not just vanity, it's facilitating and supporting things that are important to you. A big house serves a lot of purposes.

This, as with most things, is a question of utility.

If somebody has a huge house that almost never gets used, that is wasteful.
If somebody has a huge house that is either frequently used for mid-value purposes, or infrequently used for high value purposes, it is not a waste.

Along the lines of what you said, my parents who live by themselves have a 6000sf house. They host family reunions twice a year, all major holidays, neighborhood gatherings, tons of church events, etc. That is not a waste, even though for weeks at a time it is just the two of them on one floor of their three finished floors.