Is small the new big???

[Chickpea]

Chickpea:

I love the small house movement and I agree that the best known book about small houses is good, though the houses don't seem that small to me (anything over 1500 sq. ft. wouldn't be considered small to me, and 1200 - 1300 would do it for a family of 4-5; would be tight for more than that, though do-able for sure).

If I were considering designing/building small houses:

1) I'd read about how people live together (what they really need to be happy/organized/settled), what supports people living good lives (e.g., being able to connect, yet get some time apart; gathering spaces; storage; safety, spaces for guests, spaces for work-at-home), what young families and elderly really need for good lives. I remember once reading that one problem with really big houses is that no one needs to spend time together, especially with technology. Our house is an old house (close to 100 years old) that has a 1990's addition to add a garage for 2 cars and a family room. The main living spaces on two floors are probably around 1800 square feet, with a basement and attic that are usable. Anyway, what I like is that when I'm sitting in the recliner in the living room with my laptop doing my work (it's a good job), I can hear the kids upstairs -- I like to hear the sound of the girls practicing their dancing in their rooms (it's cute), I can hear them cough (but I can't hear them talking), and I can sometimes hear them laughing -- all sounds I like to hear. The kids don't have computers or TVs in their rooms because the family computer is in the family room and the family TV is in the family room.

2. I really like having porches/decks for outdoor living. Things that extend the space outdoors - in cooler climates, a porch that has windows that can be used much/all of the year as well.

3. I do wish we had a nice separate room for a guest room because we like guests, and I do like a house to have enough space for when the kids come back with their own families when they are adults. We want them to be able to be comfortable here during their stays.

4. Home work spaces are nice (though we just have our shared desk in the basement - I work in the recliner, the kids work at the dining room table)

5. Energy efficient and environmentally friendly, of course.

6. Room enough to entertain with a big table (which probably means shared dining room/living room space so the table can be made bigger or smaller as needed and an efficient kitchen for cooking/storing).

7. Clever storage options to make the most of the space: I'm already starting to get rid of lots of stuff for when the kids grow up and in case we move to a smaller house. If we don't move to a smaller house, then at least we won't be taking care of a lot of stuff we don't need.

8. Very quiet appliances (dishwasher/fridge/airconditioners, heaters/etc.) since you can hear these more clearly in a small space.

Our cottages (as many of you know) are at the Cottages at Camp Creek. I think the architects/builders did a great job creating 3 bedroom (one which holds a king bed comfortably)/2 full bath cottages in 1100 or less square feet. They are easy to navigate, great for one-floor living, look good, are easy care, hurricane sturdy (though not like Alys Beach of course), big porches, and leave the owners a lot of room for personalizing them. The only thing I would do to them over time is add more creative storage (but not too much because the idea is to live simply), add some of that hurricane protection film to the windows if the association lets us do it -- the windows are protected up to 130-140 mph winds I believe already so I'm not sure it's needed (I'll have to confirm this with the builder). Owners can make the inside as fancy or simple as they'd like. For the long-term, we did buy two 1100 square foot side by side cottages so that the kids can use one when they visit with their families someday and be comfortable. And we like to go there with our extended family and friends sometimes so it's nice to spread out. But otherwise one 1100 cottage is more than enough to live in (and we'd continue to rent the other out except for when the kids are using it/them). It's especially big enough because it's warm most of the year so we really think of the porch and the outdoors (pool/beach) as where we live.

Frankly, if people are looking for smaller places along 30A, there are plenty from what I saw and still see, even new construction, if you really want to have a smaller place at the beach.

Paula,
Beautifully stated, thoughtful, intelligent and evocative like so many of your posts!

 

[Chickpea]

I forgot to add that in the spirit of being candid - we live in just over 2100 s.f (family of 4) - it is a 3 bedroom plus office, 3-1/2 bath. Works just fine for us but I constantly meet people who tell me that their 4500 s.f house is too little for them - and I am left wondering: What needs do they have that I do not????

And finally, I know an architect (very well known in the field) who does absolutely excellent work and he was recently asked by someone in the US to design a (drum roll please..................) a 120,000 s.f house (no typos - that is a one hundred and twenty thousand s.f. house!!!!! I asked him, "where the hell do you begin with this and what is his program???" - I was told 3 programs:

1) For him and his wife
2) For their kids and guests (interesting that the kids are lumped with guests and not parents - kids' ages vary from 6-15
3) For his business.....

 

[Miss Kitty]

Thank you all for this excellent feedback (plus I needed a break from the political forum!). Many of you make some excellent points and it is great to see how many of you are willing to downsize and reap the benefits of living smaller. I actually loved reading your personal stories and knowing some of you it has been particularly interesting and enlightening.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

Oh chickypea, I have been asking this question forever around here. Mr. K has tried and tried to explain it to me. He says if there is an empty lot or a teardown on an $800,000 lot purchased by a builder, he will want to make $$$ by building as many sq. ft. as possible, since he makes no money on the land. If I owned said lot, I could possibly find a builder to build that smaller home.

 

[SHELLY]

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

During the RE frenzy folks were building/buying high-priced "investment" property so they can service the Baby Boomers (or so says the sales pitch)....but consider this:


Study: Many Boomers Lack Retirement Fund
Monday July 30, 6:45 pm ET
By Eileen Alt Powell, AP Business Writer

Study Says Nearly One-Third of Older Baby Boomers Haven't Saved Enough for Retirement

NEW YORK (AP) -- Nearly one-third of baby boomers ages 51 to 61 are at risk of not having enough in savings to finance a comfortable retirement, according to a study being released Tuesday by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

With its analysis, the center has joined the national debate over how much savings is enough -- and has done so on the side that says there's a shortfall.

"We just don't believe people are saving too much," Alicia H. Munnell, a professor of management sciences at Boston College and director of the retirement research center, told The Associated Press.

A recently published academic study looked at the retirement preparedness of Americans who were in their 50s in 1992 and concluded that at least 80 percent had more than enough assets for retirement. Other scientists have argued that Americans may be saving too much.

The new Boston College study evaluated the same 51-61 age group, but looked at their finances in 2004, and found 32 percent to be "at risk" for not being able to maintain their preretirement standing of living in retirement.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070730/boomers_savings.html?.v=2

 

[Mermaid]

Thank you all for this excellent feedback (plus I needed a break from the political forum!). Many of you make some excellent points and it is great to see how many of you are willing to downsize and reap the benefits of living smaller. I actually loved reading your personal stories and knowing some of you it has been particularly interesting and enlightening.

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

I don't know if this is the answer to the question, Chickpea, but I think the overwhelming (though thankfully changing?) mentality in this country is that "bigger is better." Not "better is better."

It's a fine idea in and of itself--bigger is better--but somehow it's turned into a mockery of its original intent. In the housing market in particular, it's become an end, not a means. A brand new bigger house is what success looks like to its purchasers. If I have a bigger house, that means I have a bigger job, a bigger income, a bigger life than the person whose house is not so bigger as mine. It's simple. I live big, therefore I AM big.

I like the concept of bigger is better in its best form: I'd like to build a house that is full of bigger ideas. I'd like an architect who could think big on my behalf and build me a house that is made of the best, most useful materials and have the best use of space to suit the needs of my family and friends, thus giving an overall feeling of competence and quality. If all these things were in a house, it would feel grand, and that feeling would have nothing to do with how much square footage was involved. In fact, well-designed houses defy square footage.

I do think, however, that does not appeal to the market at large, at least not if current building trends up and down 30-A are any indication. I think it takes courage to buy something deliberately less McMansionish (especially if you could afford it, and especially if most of your peers were doing it). The movement towards making the choice for quality of construction versus quantity of construction is still something still in its infancy. Gaining a strong toehold, though. There's always the hope that common sense will once again triumph.

 

[Mango]

I have one question though about something that I hear all the time and my simple brain cannot make it make sense - why do people who pay a lot for a large house always make the argument that they now have to build a large house to make their investment worth it?? What is wrong or fiscally irreponsible about putting a small or medium house on a large lot? It does not devalue one's property and surely the economics of building small and less make it a sounder financial decision.

I think this would have to do with the size of the homes in the neighborhood. If you live in McMansionville and there's still a vacant lot around, anyone who purchases it will be inclined to keep up with the Joneses or be inclined to construct in tune with the feel for the neighborhood.

My neighborhood is an exception though. In the late 80's, early 90's, they built homes in the 4000 sq ft range, but then the developer went belly up. Most of us didn't need homes that size, and built homes in the 2200-3000 sq ft range. We all sit on large lots of about 2-3 acres. Some people as their families expanded or brought in-laws to live with them expanded their homes, but most left them alone.

My next door neighbor though who built last decided to build a 5000 sq ft home with an outbuilding studio :shock: and recently went to have to it appraised.
It really didn't appraise that much more than mine being that I have a larger level lot (hers has a large incline) She really thought that she would get a much higher value than what I had thought she she came to me for a refinance. She's always complaining about her utility bills and maintenance of the house and its just her and her 2 daughters.

People forget that it is location, location and adjustments will be made on an appraisal for square footage obviously upon appraisal, but the location and topography of the land is what is most important.

I do want to note that in an appraisal and for those considering downsizing, that even though you may have the same sq footage, updated baths, use of specific materials etc. will make a difference in value.
In my area (not sure about how they do it in sowal) if someone has a 2 bedroom, the appraiser will try to find 2 bedrooms vs, a 3 bedroom with the same sq. footage, so if I were to downsize, I would try for a 3 bedroom house, or build it so I can convert it back to 3 bedroom for resale purposes if necessary.

I think Paula's cottages are an excellent example of a 3 bedroom layout design for downsizing.

 

[scooterbug44]

The amount of space you NEED and would USE is very often not what you will end up with. Real estate agents and builders will steer you towards a larger home because they get more $$ that way. It is also more challenging/exacting work to design & build a more compact home so people cut corners and just make stuff bigger and generic.

Craftsmanship and charm will always sell a house better and faster than a list of "features" and unnecessary square footage.

 

[Smiling JOe]

The amount of space you NEED and would USE is very often not what you will end up with. Real estate agents and builders will steer you towards a larger home because they get more $$ that way. It is also more challenging/exacting work to design & build a more compact home so people cut corners and just make stuff bigger and generic.

Craftsmanship and charm will always sell a house better and faster than a list of "features" and unnecessary square footage.

Wait a minute, missy. Don't go lumping us all together. :nono1: There are plenty of Realtors who don't operate like that.

 

[Rambunkscious]

No, the small is not the new big. Bigger is better in every way.
Bigger houses justify pricey lots, smaller houses dont; imagine paying a million bucks for a building lot and putting a thousand sf house on it and trying to sell it-------the appraiser would give you almost nothing for the house because its size would be obsolete........Who would pay as much for a 1000 sf house as those would pay for a 3 or 4 thousand sf house????? NOBODY.

The same architects who design 1000 sf houses also design 4000 sf houses.
Large houses are not immune to creative design. Are any of you driving around in a mo-ped??? How bout a car built just for gas mileage? No?
Why not? Because Bigger is Better!!!

Wake up America!

 

[scooterbug44]

Who would pay as much for a 1000 sf house as those would pay for a 3 or 4 thousand sf house????? NOBODY.

The same architects who design 1000 sf houses also design 4000 sf houses.
Large houses are not immune to creative design.

More isn't always better, sometimes it's just more!

Obviously, if everything was equal (location, lot size etc), people wouldn't pay as much for 1000 as they do for 4000. One would certainly hope the latter has more bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.

I'm not saying large houses can't be creative, but that smaller houses w/ space limitations require more creativity, just as a smaller suitcase makes you have to plan better when packing. Innovation usually occurs when you have limited resources and options!