Anonymous wrote:We have almost 3000 ft for three of us. It’s not so much the size but the way some of the space is ill-designed. For instance, we have a giant master suite with a semi-separate sitting area. That space is unused, while the kids’ bedrooms could use a little more square footage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I originally came to this thread with the attitude of "hey, different strokes for different folks" -- I have never really though that hard about what other families do, as I like our family size and house size.
Reading the thread has made me a convert though: y'all are horrifying. These people talking about 5k, 6k, even 10k houses for 2-3 people? It's gross. The PP who said that at that point, it doesn't matter how environmentally conscious your house is, it's environmental impact is horrific? Is correct.
I don't care if you have a couple spare bedrooms or not, if you have a living room and den, whatever. But when the overall size of your home is this big, you are doing something really selfish. I don't know, I live in an apartment in the city. I get that other people want more space and I don't begrudge that. But there has to be something between the way I live (3 people in 1000 sq ft) and the way some of you all are living. It's just so obviously unsustainable! Good lord.
Why is it gross? If they can afford it, what's wrong with it. We have 1000 square feet too and its a struggle at times especially with work at home and kids in virtual learning. Not to mention, all the kid stuff.
The planet cannot afford it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I originally came to this thread with the attitude of "hey, different strokes for different folks" -- I have never really though that hard about what other families do, as I like our family size and house size.
Reading the thread has made me a convert though: y'all are horrifying. These people talking about 5k, 6k, even 10k houses for 2-3 people? It's gross. The PP who said that at that point, it doesn't matter how environmentally conscious your house is, it's environmental impact is horrific? Is correct.
I don't care if you have a couple spare bedrooms or not, if you have a living room and den, whatever. But when the overall size of your home is this big, you are doing something really selfish. I don't know, I live in an apartment in the city. I get that other people want more space and I don't begrudge that. But there has to be something between the way I live (3 people in 1000 sq ft) and the way some of you all are living. It's just so obviously unsustainable! Good lord.
Why is it gross? If they can afford it, what's wrong with it. We have 1000 square feet too and its a struggle at times especially with work at home and kids in virtual learning. Not to mention, all the kid stuff.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I originally came to this thread with the attitude of "hey, different strokes for different folks" -- I have never really though that hard about what other families do, as I like our family size and house size.
Reading the thread has made me a convert though: y'all are horrifying. These people talking about 5k, 6k, even 10k houses for 2-3 people? It's gross. The PP who said that at that point, it doesn't matter how environmentally conscious your house is, it's environmental impact is horrific? Is correct.
I don't care if you have a couple spare bedrooms or not, if you have a living room and den, whatever. But when the overall size of your home is this big, you are doing something really selfish. I don't know, I live in an apartment in the city. I get that other people want more space and I don't begrudge that. But there has to be something between the way I live (3 people in 1000 sq ft) and the way some of you all are living. It's just so obviously unsustainable! Good lord.
Why is it gross? If they can afford it, what's wrong with it. We have 1000 square feet too and its a struggle at times especially with work at home and kids in virtual learning. Not to mention, all the kid stuff.
Anonymous wrote:I originally came to this thread with the attitude of "hey, different strokes for different folks" -- I have never really though that hard about what other families do, as I like our family size and house size.
Reading the thread has made me a convert though: y'all are horrifying. These people talking about 5k, 6k, even 10k houses for 2-3 people? It's gross. The PP who said that at that point, it doesn't matter how environmentally conscious your house is, it's environmental impact is horrific? Is correct.
I don't care if you have a couple spare bedrooms or not, if you have a living room and den, whatever. But when the overall size of your home is this big, you are doing something really selfish. I don't know, I live in an apartment in the city. I get that other people want more space and I don't begrudge that. But there has to be something between the way I live (3 people in 1000 sq ft) and the way some of you all are living. It's just so obviously unsustainable! Good lord.
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?