Why do tiny houses always come on large lots...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why do tiny houses always come on large lots...

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:50:41 PM EDT

[#1]

Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:38 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Older houses are smaller. Older lots are larger.

Ding ding.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:58 PM EDT

[#3]

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:52:04 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:53:16 PM EDT

[#5]

Why do really fat guys drive compact cars?

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:55:15 PM EDT

[#6]

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

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:57:30 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 2:59:54 PM EDT

[#8]

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:03:01 PM EDT

[#9]

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:05:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:21:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:24:09 PM EDT

[#12]

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:36:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 3:42:38 PM EDT

[#14]

My house is only about 1200 sq ft
But it sits on a 60 acre lot.
Its called elbow room.

Posted: 9/30/2011 4:04:38 PM EDT

[#15]

We have 2,200 sq. ft. on 3 acres, which in turn is on 330 acres.

Nobody but deer and turkeys in sight.

Posted: 9/30/2011 4:12:00 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 9/30/2011 4:40:37 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why do tiny houses always come on large lots...

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us