Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my searches in Arlington, there is often not that much of a price difference between well maintained, older 3-4 bedroom houses with 2500 sq ft (often around $1.5-$1.7 million) and relatively new McMansions with 5-6 bedrooms with 4000-5000 sq ft (often around $1.8-$2.0 million). So it can make lots of sense to just go for the bigger house, even if you don't really need the extra space.

In my N.Arl neighborhood every new build is 6-7 bedrooms and bathrooms, and many look like apartment buildings.

The builders make them this large because the lots are so expensive ($1 million+) that they have to build a huge house to reap a profit.

I know many downsizers and people with no kids or only 1-2 that are having trouble finding a home that is not a giant McMansion.

The smaller homes have huge bidding wars and go very, very fast.

Why can't the developer build a multi-family unit instead of one McMansion?

Zoning could be an issue in certain areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lucky them. We're a family of 4 in a 2500 square foot house and it is not enough room. My teenage daughter won't have her friends over and my college-age kids wants his girlfriend to visit but there's nowhere for her to stay. I wuold love to have 5 or more bedrooms, especially as kids age and have different needs.

why won’t she have friends over? I grew up in England and we all have small houses with no guest rooms, basements etc. I had friends over. We hung out in my room.

I grew up that way, too. But when all of your friends have extra space in their houses when they have you over, it's just not comfortable. Her generation just doesn't do that and she's embarrassed. I wish she didn't feel like that, but I do get it.

+1. If you are UMC, it’s true. We are considering a screened-in porch for that purpose.

4500+ square feet. Family of 4 (one about to leave for college). We use most rooms regularly (two as offices + a movie theatre). Some less frequently (two guest rooms - thanks COVID, formal dining room). Hoping to get more use out of the guest rooms soon and wouldn't want to have gone smaller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We moved from a 5,300 square foot house to a 9,000 square foot house for more room. It depends on what your hobbies and proclivities are when considering the amount of space needed for one's pleasure.

Very similar here - 4K to 9.5K sq. ft for a couple. We wanted a less crowded garage, separate rooms for individual offices, a large guest suite for visitors, and dedicated rooms for a a gym, golf simulator, music, and other interests.

This is shockingly wasteful. I hope your dreams are haunted by people who can't afford any place to live, much less a massive house for just two people.

If you'd like to house homeless people, feel free to invite them to live with you, but why criticize those who are able to live as they choose? Jealousy?

NP here: Overconsumption like that leaves one open to criticism. Even if that house is a LEED-certified energy-efficient marvel, the amount of materials and space used for a house of that size is indefensible. I’m not jealous of people in houses like that. I’m depressed that they think it’s fine, and that there are thousands (millions?) of people who feel the same.

Indefensible, I’m not jealous, I’m not depressed? A lot to unpack here. Ugh this is what is wrong with our country in 2022. I’m a left coaster who doesn’t like the McCraftsman sprawl of NoVA but cmon this is just one out of a million lifestyle choices with carbon footprint implications. Define overconsumption. Should I lecture you to never fly on a jet airplane, drive, have children, or use air conditioning? Let them live in their big houses, this is America for crying out loud. Should we aspire for govt that tells people how to live their lives, maybe like Saudi Arabia which decides what women are and aren’t allowed to do. Oops soon that’ll be us too?

Of course people can have these houses. Where in that post does it say otherwise? But people judge others for their decisions all the time. I think people who build too-large houses are selfish. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating for them to be banned.

There is nothing, let me repeat, nothing, more damaging to the future of the planet than overpopulation. So, regardless of how many bedrooms your house has - three, four? gasp, and you have THREE living spaces!!! a formal dining room is a WASTE! - if you are having kids at all, you have already done your damage. It's fun to watch y'all argue though. Carry on.

How many trees were felled to make that McMansion? How much oil was used to transport the lumber? Should we talk about the amount of metal used and the environmental cost of said extraction so you can have a mini castle? What's killing the environment is not the amount of people, it's the rabid over consumption. The US is leading the charge big plates, big bellies, big cars x2/3, big houses, bed beds (California King?!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my searches in Arlington, there is often not that much of a price difference between well maintained, older 3-4 bedroom houses with 2500 sq ft (often around $1.5-$1.7 million) and relatively new McMansions with 5-6 bedrooms with 4000-5000 sq ft (often around $1.8-$2.0 million). So it can make lots of sense to just go for the bigger house, even if you don't really need the extra space.

In my N.Arl neighborhood every new build is 6-7 bedrooms and bathrooms, and many look like apartment buildings.

The builders make them this large because the lots are so expensive ($1 million+) that they have to build a huge house to reap a profit.

I know many downsizers and people with no kids or only 1-2 that are having trouble finding a home that is not a giant McMansion.

The smaller homes have huge bidding wars and go very, very fast.

Why can't the developer build a multi-family unit instead of one McMansion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We moved from a 5,300 square foot house to a 9,000 square foot house for more room. It depends on what your hobbies and proclivities are when considering the amount of space needed for one's pleasure.

Very similar here - 4K to 9.5K sq. ft for a couple. We wanted a less crowded garage, separate rooms for individual offices, a large guest suite for visitors, and dedicated rooms for a a gym, golf simulator, music, and other interests.

This is shockingly wasteful. I hope your dreams are haunted by people who can't afford any place to live, much less a massive house for just two people.

If you'd like to house homeless people, feel free to invite them to live with you, but why criticize those who are able to live as they choose? Jealousy?

NP here: Overconsumption like that leaves one open to criticism. Even if that house is a LEED-certified energy-efficient marvel, the amount of materials and space used for a house of that size is indefensible. I’m not jealous of people in houses like that. I’m depressed that they think it’s fine, and that there are thousands (millions?) of people who feel the same.

Indefensible, I’m not jealous, I’m not depressed? A lot to unpack here. Ugh this is what is wrong with our country in 2022. I’m a left coaster who doesn’t like the McCraftsman sprawl of NoVA but cmon this is just one out of a million lifestyle choices with carbon footprint implications. Define overconsumption. Should I lecture you to never fly on a jet airplane, drive, have children, or use air conditioning? Let them live in their big houses, this is America for crying out loud. Should we aspire for govt that tells people how to live their lives, maybe like Saudi Arabia which decides what women are and aren’t allowed to do. Oops soon that’ll be us too?

Of course people can have these houses. Where in that post does it say otherwise? But people judge others for their decisions all the time. I think people who build too-large houses are selfish. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating for them to be banned.

There is nothing, let me repeat, nothing, more damaging to the future of the planet than overpopulation. So, regardless of how many bedrooms your house has - three, four? gasp, and you have THREE living spaces!!! a formal dining room is a WASTE! - if you are having kids at all, you have already done your damage. It's fun to watch y'all argue though. Carry on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We moved from a 5,300 square foot house to a 9,000 square foot house for more room. It depends on what your hobbies and proclivities are when considering the amount of space needed for one's pleasure.

Very similar here - 4K to 9.5K sq. ft for a couple. We wanted a less crowded garage, separate rooms for individual offices, a large guest suite for visitors, and dedicated rooms for a a gym, golf simulator, music, and other interests.

This is shockingly wasteful. I hope your dreams are haunted by people who can't afford any place to live, much less a massive house for just two people.

If you'd like to house homeless people, feel free to invite them to live with you, but why criticize those who are able to live as they choose? Jealousy?

NP here: Overconsumption like that leaves one open to criticism. Even if that house is a LEED-certified energy-efficient marvel, the amount of materials and space used for a house of that size is indefensible. I’m not jealous of people in houses like that. I’m depressed that they think it’s fine, and that there are thousands (millions?) of people who feel the same.

Indefensible, I’m not jealous, I’m not depressed? A lot to unpack here. Ugh this is what is wrong with our country in 2022. I’m a left coaster who doesn’t like the McCraftsman sprawl of NoVA but cmon this is just one out of a million lifestyle choices with carbon footprint implications. Define overconsumption. Should I lecture you to never fly on a jet airplane, drive, have children, or use air conditioning? Let them live in their big houses, this is America for crying out loud. Should we aspire for govt that tells people how to live their lives, maybe like Saudi Arabia which decides what women are and aren’t allowed to do. Oops soon that’ll be us too?

Of course people can have these houses. Where in that post does it say otherwise? But people judge others for their decisions all the time. I think people who build too-large houses are selfish. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating for them to be banned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We moved from a 5,300 square foot house to a 9,000 square foot house for more room. It depends on what your hobbies and proclivities are when considering the amount of space needed for one's pleasure.

Very similar here - 4K to 9.5K sq. ft for a couple. We wanted a less crowded garage, separate rooms for individual offices, a large guest suite for visitors, and dedicated rooms for a a gym, golf simulator, music, and other interests.

This is shockingly wasteful. I hope your dreams are haunted by people who can't afford any place to live, much less a massive house for just two people.

DP. We are three people in 6,000+ sq ft. home. My dreams are not haunted by the fact that I bought a large house. We donate over $100,000 a year to one food insecurity charity as well as volunteer our time. What are you doing to help those less fortunate?

If that poster had the brains to snag someone who made serious money, she would be the first in line to have a similar house. As it is, she now must rely on the largesse of those like you to fund her non-profit non-anything job until she completes barista training.

Yikes! Are you OK? You sound unhinged.

We have separate offices for both DH and I (currently WFH full-time, I'll eventually be WFH 3x/week), a peloton room, and one guest room.

Currently in a 3 bedroom TH with 1700 sq ft with 2 adults and 2 young kids.

We passed on a 4400 sq ft house because it just seemed too dang big. I couldn't wrap my head around the sunk costs of heating/cooling a house of that size. The kitchen was in fine condition, but at some point we would have to redo it....but redoing a kitchen of that size was probably going to cost $150-200k. And some PP's remarked on filling it with furniture - it might not be a lot of money but its still forcing you to spend money when you don't need to. Sure I could find a use for all the rooms and the space and I'm sure I would like to have extra rooms for the quarterly out of town visitors, but it feels wasteful.

Sometimes I think its the "one that got away" but it was a good palate cleanser.

Now to find the elusive 3000 sq foot house!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read numerous studies that smaller homes (not teeny, but 'normal size') make for closer families. The studies I read about this mentioned the number of daily interactions/forced passings in the home. You engage in more conversations, interactions, etc. People aren't in the separate wing of the home of in their gigantic bath-in suite kid bedroom. From what I've seen IRL, there is a lot of truth to this.

My sons (2.5 years apart) shared a bedroom from 2 and 5years old until the oldest was in 8th grade. We did have an extra bedroom. They are so close. We had a friend our age over who has a brother with the same age spread and he mentioned he shared a room with his brother too and they have an incredibly tight knit bond. Our master bedroom was next to my boys' room and I would hear the chatting and giggling at night. It was really sweet. IT also was their 'territory'.

Umm but they can also hear you😬🙈

Anonymous wrote:
There is no downside to more space unless you can't afford the maintenance. Either the spaces sit unused or you end up spreading out more. Of course, it's bad for the environment to consume that much energy to maintain large homes.

You just accumulate more junk and stuff you don't need.

We have one of the 6k sq ft exurb houses, but a big reason is to accommodate a full apartment in the (full daylight) basement level for live-in MIL.

I'd say the only rooms we don't really use are the formal dining room and the movie room. We made the formal living room into my home office and have a spare upstairs bedroom. Family room (main room in the center of the house!) doesn't get a *ton* of use, in fact I wish we used it more, but we just don't all hang out or watch TV in there together a lot (but kids are young and we limit TV). Kids have their own rooms but spend much more time together in their playroom. If we stay put long enough for them to outgrow the playroom, we'll turn it into the actual office it's supposed to be or something else.

There is no downside to more space unless you can't afford the maintenance. Either the spaces sit unused or you end up spreading out more. Of course, it's bad for the environment to consume that much energy to maintain large homes.

Anonymous wrote:I have read numerous studies that smaller homes (not teeny, but 'normal size') make for closer families. The studies I read about this mentioned the number of daily interactions/forced passings in the home. You engage in more conversations, interactions, etc. People aren't in the separate wing of the home of in their gigantic bath-in suite kid bedroom. From what I've seen IRL, there is a lot of truth to this.

My sons (2.5 years apart) shared a bedroom from 2 and 5years old until the oldest was in 8th grade. We did have an extra bedroom. They are so close. We had a friend our age over who has a brother with the same age spread and he mentioned he shared a room with his brother too and they have an incredibly tight knit bond. Our master bedroom was next to my boys' room and I would hear the chatting and giggling at night. It was really sweet. IT also was their 'territory'.