Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:49:52 PM EDT
...and large houses on small lots?

Every house that's 2000sqf and up is on a .3 acre lot and under. Anything .75 and up is under 1300sqf.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:50:41 PM EDT
Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.

Ding ding.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:58 PM EDT
You must live in hell. Around here, 5 acres is the minimum lot size for new construction, and the homes are usually a minimum of 1500, but generally 2500 sq ft.

My house is 1800 on an acre, but built in the 50's.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:52:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.


That's pretty much it.

Back in the 1970's and earlier, lots were more often laid out nicely, instead of being carved up to be the exact minimum the local zoning laws allow. And back then houses were smaller.



Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:53:16 PM EDT
Why do really fat guys drive compact cars?
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:55:15 PM EDT
That makes sense. I suppose if I want a 2000sqf home with an acre I would have to spend almost 200,000.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:57:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.


+1, now they try to squeeze the biggest home on the smallest lot. Its the property thats expensive not the building.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:59:54 PM EDT
Developers might not be geniuses, but they do catch on to trends. The single biggest factor to the price you can sell a house for these days is the square footage. The size of the lot is barely relevant. It makes perfect business sense that lots have shrunk while houses have grown.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:03:01 PM EDT
Also, people tend to be inside more now than they used to, so the yard isn't as important as that fancy kitchen and big TV.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:05:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Developers might not be geniuses, but they do catch on to trends. The single biggest factor to the price you can sell a house for these days is the square footage. The size of the lot is barely relevant. It makes perfect business sense that lots have shrunk while houses have grown.

Not true of everyone, although it's definitely more common. We wanted some distance from our neighbors, so we wouldn't consider anything less than .75 acres. Wound up with 1.5 acres and a nice tree line on both sides of our lot. Makes for good backyard privacy.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:21:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Developers might not be geniuses, but they do catch on to trends. The single biggest factor to the price you can sell a house for these days is the square footage. The size of the lot is barely relevant. It makes perfect business sense that lots have shrunk while houses have grown.

Not true of everyone, although it's definitely more common. We wanted some distance from our neighbors, so we wouldn't consider anything less than .75 acres. Wound up with 1.5 acres and a nice tree line on both sides of our lot. Makes for good backyard privacy.


"Trend" need not imply "everyone." McMansions on postage stamp lots have been built everywhere, because they have offered the biggest return on investment for the developer. There are - and will always be - niche markets on new house and, of course, used houses which reflect trends from a different era.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:24:09 PM EDT
My house is just over 2K Sq Ft. I think my plot is .5 Acre, maybe a little more. My brothers house is 4300sq ft, two story. His lot is like .15 Acre. He doesnt have any backyard at all. My backyard is huge.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:36:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonnyVain:
That makes sense. I suppose if I want a 2000sqf home with an acre I would have to spend almost 200,000.

You'd have to settle for 100 acres here, for that kind of money.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:42:38 PM EDT
My house is only about 1200 sq ft
But it sits on a 60 acre lot.
Its called elbow room.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 4:04:38 PM EDT
We have 2,200 sq. ft. on 3 acres, which in turn is on 330 acres.

Nobody but deer and turkeys in sight.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 4:12:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BustinCaps:
You must live in hell. Around here, 5 acres is the minimum lot size for new construction, and the homes are usually a minimum of 1500, but generally 2500 sq ft.

My house is 1800 on an acre, but built in the 50's.


Here lots are 1/3 or 1/4 acre usually, sometimes 1/2 acre in certain areas.

Just throwing it out there, if you want 5 acres in city limits here you could probably pick it up for about 150k an acre. I'm just guessing based on seeing residential lots average 50-80k for 1/3 acre.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 4:40:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Developers might not be geniuses, but they do catch on to trends. The single biggest factor to the price you can sell a house for these days is the square footage. The size of the lot is barely relevant. It makes perfect business sense that lots have shrunk while houses have grown.

Not true of everyone, although it's definitely more common. We wanted some distance from our neighbors, so we wouldn't consider anything less than .75 acres. Wound up with 1.5 acres and a nice tree line on both sides of our lot. Makes for good backyard privacy.


"Trend" need not imply "everyone." McMansions on postage stamp lots have been built everywhere, because they have offered the biggest return on investment for the developer. There are - and will always be - niche markets on new house and, of course, used houses which reflect trends from a different era.

Exactly.
Top Top