I read in the paper yesterday that now that the US economy is recovering, the size of newly built homes is growing again. It said that new homes now average over 2200 square feet, but I can tell you that around here (Dallas), that's a relatively modest starter house. The vast majority seem to be well in excess of 3000 feet. For families with kids this might make sense, but not for empty nesters (and there are a lot of us).
Build 'em big. Build a lot of 'em.
I haven't built a home smaller than 5500 square feet in years. Right now I'm adding on to a 6300 square footer I built 2 years ago ^ , bringing it up to around 9000 feet. I can't imagine living in a house that large. It just isn't my thing. (But of course, if they're intent on giving their hard earned money to a builder, it might as well be me. ;)
I had a large(-ish) home myself a few years ago, but with the recession of '08 approaching I knew that its value was only going to drop, so I bailed when I could and did fairly well.
The main reason I bailed, however, was because I was tired of paying all the property taxes, the insurance, the utilities, the maintenance, the yard upkeep, the cleaning, etc. I was getting no satisfaction from ownership, and in fact it was an albatross around my neck.
I began thinking about it and realized we actually only used about 1300 square feet, the rest just being space that was never used. All that hassle wasn't worth it to my teeny ego. Or maybe I'm just lazy? (Full disclosure.)
We rented a 2 bed-2 bath apartment* in a nice area and found it to be plenty big enough....after getting rid of everything we knew we were never going to use again. Before long we realized even that was too much (the spare bedroom became a catch-all junk room) so we downsized again to a one bedroom apartment. The peace of mind knowing that I have virtually no chores to do around the house/apt is very liberating.
This would do just fine.
But now here's the crazy part: I sometimes think it would be nice to build another home for K and me. I could make it state-of-the-art, energy efficient, super durable, etc, but I would want absolutely no more than 1,000 square feet, and there's the rub. No city around here will allow a home to be built that small.
Why, you ask? (Go ahead, ask.) Because the cities like all the property tax $$$$ big houses bring in. Screw what the people want, this is what the cities want. The tail is wagging the dog.
So the next time you hear some bureaucrat from the Department of Overpaid Gubment Employment preach that we need to preserve water and power, use less everything, recycle more, live smarter and such, remind them of this hypocrisy.
S
* Sometime I should write about my downsizing experience.
I have downsized as well. I miss my pool table, but not the indoor pool, the 5th bathroom, the library, the extra tree bedrooms, the concert hall, the bowling alley, the five car garage, the horse stables, or the movie theater.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about cities limiting the size of a new house for tax reasons...maybe they should have a minimum tax based on acreage.
I like your way of thinking. I wasn't aware of the size limit. Is that a city, county, or state thing?
ReplyDeleteIt's generally a city thing Steve, as they are the ones who control local zoning.
DeleteI agree that there is really only so much space you need and the rest is just for show. We live in a two bedroom townhouse and the second bedroom has been used only once or twice in five years. But we own the place and aren't going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI like that skinny house in the pic, bet it would be just what we need. I got my tax fantasy in the mail today and looky here! My house is now worth a lot more! Even the 15,000 sq foot lot is worth over $ 100K! Yep I will be hopping mad when the actual tax bill comes, based on these NEW values. ( The city is out to get us ) watch out.
ReplyDeleteI have only owned one house in my life and it went to the ex-wife (not SWMBO) when we divorced. Since then I have only rented. There have been times when I have thought it would be nice to own a home. But now I'm too old so I'll continue to rent and let the landlord make the big repairs.
ReplyDeleteBTW, little old Prescott has that prohibition on "tiny" homes, too.
We've only ever rented & I do not aspire to home ownership. I enjoy our little house - but even it's a bit much for my cleaning abilities (or should I say proclivities - ha!). However on that score I'm not sure that having a smaller place would make me clean more often.
ReplyDeleteMy first house was 980 square feet - tiny eat-in kitchen, three small bedrooms, one bathroom. Two rambunctions boys and a husband who was so full of himself he could have occupied the whole house all by himself. It got a lot better when the husband (my ex) moved out, but 980 square feet is a bit small with two kids.
ReplyDeleteNow, with just Dave and me, I probably could be comfortable in 980 square feet. Maybe if the kitchen were a little larger than the one in my first house.
I'd love to read about your downsizing experience!
I recently pointed out in a Facebook post about a small efficient house that it could not be built in the city for the same reason you cite plus it could not have the same character because of brick requirements. I am currently reviewing the proposed new Garland development code which won't change those restrictions.
ReplyDeleteUnder the section about the purpose of the code it is all about the city and it's goals. Not a word about owners property rights. Where I live now couldn't be developed as it is under the new rules.
I just had a townhome project die in McKinney because the tree ordinance is so restrictive as to become a taking by making the property essentially undevelopable.
If my house were to burn I would rebuild it as a smaller 1 story now that the kids are gone. It would still have to be over 2300 square feet.
I recently pointed out in a Facebook post about a small efficient house that it could not be built in the city for the same reason you cite plus it could not have the same character because of brick requirements. I am currently reviewing the proposed new Garland development code which won't change those restrictions.
ReplyDeleteUnder the section about the purpose of the code it is all about the city and it's goals. Not a word about owners property rights. Where I live now couldn't be developed as it is under the new rules.
I just had a townhome project die in McKinney because the tree ordinance is so restrictive as to become a taking by making the property essentially undevelopable.
If my house were to burn I would rebuild it as a smaller 1 story now that the kids are gone. It would still have to be over 2300 square feet.
Kelly's Fear of Homeownership:
ReplyDelete1. being close to a neighbor and hating them for the entire 30 year mortgage (in my mind I always live a very long time and actually stay alive to pay off the mortgage)
2. being so far away from civilization due to square footage restrictions that I have to deal with "wild life" - I mean the wasps chase me off the urban balcony we now have...what am I going to do with snakes and bobcats?
On the other hand I would adore to live in a tiny home built by the love of my life :)
I've seen good people- who bought homes in the '50s, paid them off, were good stable citizens--taxed out of their homes with rising property tax rates after they retired. The continuing acceptance of such authority is beyond my comprehension.
ReplyDelete