# As we all predicted - houses getting smaller!



## webbie (Nov 14, 2010)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-11-14-smaller-homes_N.htm

Obviously, smaller is greener also.....


----------



## btuser (Nov 14, 2010)

It also means relatives can't move back in!  My house has a spare room, or should I say had a spare room.  I've cousins I've never even met who know about it.


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2010)

Nice, folks are starting to wake up to the fact that you have to heat and maintain these places. Hopefully this trend will continue. Cathedral ceilings next.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm all for appropriate sized houses and energy efficient construction, but I wonder how far this movement is going to get before the disadvantages come out.  

"Backyard wind turbines" for starters.  How long till the "hip downtown feel" starts feeling like skid row and neighbors from heck.  Small, cozy, overfinished, quaint "pukey" homes, that are more expensive to build and maintain than the base model mcmansion.

Susanka built a career off the mistakes of two story fow-yeahs and toilet to a-hole ratios over 2 to 1,  but her simplistic, architect centric style is the same shallow cookie cutter consumerism as any taupe suburb out there.  

If you think a mcmansion depreciates fast in this economy, how do you think think half the square footage with a custom window seat and the same price is going to hold up?  Energy efficiency is a cheap label to add to an overpriced papered over pile of sticks.  

I love looking at the dark wood rec rooms and shag carpet houses that have been preserved in all of their glory, they'll be classics soon.  It will take a little longer for bamboo and stainless to come back.  I'm afraid some of the cuteness we're seeing these days will curse it's owners for decades.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 15, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Nice, folks are starting to wake up to the fact that you have to heat and maintain these places. Hopefully this trend will continue. Cathedral ceilings next.



High ceilings drive me crazy.  There is a big craze in the ADK park for chateau type houses with big, high 2.5 story ceilings.  I want to see their faces when they come up to a cold chateau and try to heat it in a reasonable amount of time.  


Matt


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 15, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-11-14-smaller-homes_N.htm
> 
> Obviously, smaller is greener also.....


Smaller is also Greener '''''''''''
Not always, Im rehabbing a 12000 SF Apt building that i may just move into from a 3000SF home. Now with all the extra space i can set up my waste wood heating system that i just did not have room for before,plus it will be more cost effective if it provides heat for more than 1 family. Lots of room for solar installations on a 3000 SF Flat roof. Possibly will set up a banquet hall there providing income without travel. ill no longer need to burn coal for heat or use electric for hot water. Part of the building may be rented out to other families and businesses providing green energy to them as well.  Large can be green as well ,sometimes greener than small.


----------



## btuser (Nov 17, 2010)

I've got a 4300sqft house.  3 households combined into one with one address.


----------



## dvellone (Nov 18, 2010)

I think that instead of advocating for smaller=greener the trend should be for energy efficiency and sustainable and non-toxic building materials if its green you're really after. Its a bit misleading to just associate small with being green. A smaller footprint might have it's merits environmentally speaking, but that's not to say that someone who opts for a larger home while putting extra effort towards the efficiency of the building is impacting the environment negatively because the footprint of the house is larger.


----------



## btuser (Nov 18, 2010)

I want a 500 sqft house and a 3000 sqft garage.


----------



## Nic36 (Nov 18, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> I want a 500 sqft house and a 3000 sqft garage.



I'm very close to that. I have an 850 square foot house and a 7500 square foot barn.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 18, 2010)

Last weekend talked to our 3 adult children with families, all starting to look for larger houses, and suggested to them we seek a small house "compound" for them plus Mom and Dad, with shared large family and kitchen spaces, shared equipment, shared vehicles, etc. While I can't say they all were gung-ho, none laughed at me and all were open to talk more about it.


----------



## daveswoodhauler (Nov 18, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Last weekend talked to our 3 adult children with families, all starting to look for larger houses, and suggested to them we seek a small house "compound" for them plus Mom and Dad, with shared large family and kitchen spaces, shared equipment, shared vehicles, etc. While I can't say they all were gung-ho, none laughed at me and all were open to talk more about it.



I mention this to my wife all the time....big living area in the middle and 3 separate compounds.....then I spend about 2 hours with my MIL and then say forget about that


----------



## jharkin (Nov 18, 2010)

Our place is 1400ft2 and we still have a separate formal living room, familly/tv room, dining room, etc.   They just aren't big enough to park a Mac truck in.

Of course everything is relative. I think my house is a small (I like small), but in some countries they would easily fit 5 or 6 families in the same space...


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 18, 2010)

Having a large home is only wasteful if its an energy hog,many large homes use less energy than much smaller ones,the one in usatoday about a week ago in the woods used 97% less energy than a similar sized home 97%.


----------



## Later (Nov 18, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heating is one problem, painting them is the worst!


----------



## Wood Duck (Nov 18, 2010)

But a big energy efficient home still uses more energy than a smaller home of similar energy efficiency. I think the point is not that all small houses are greener than all larger houses, but that size of the house is one variable in the green equation. Lots of new houses are excessively large for the average family - the space just isn't needed nor does it add much if anything to the quality of life for the residents, but adds heating costs, cleaning and maintenance effort, construction cost, land use, etc.


----------



## Wood Duck (Nov 18, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> I'm all for appropriate sized houses and energy efficient construction, but I wonder how far this movement is going to get before the disadvantages come out.
> 
> "Backyard wind turbines" for starters.  How long till the "hip downtown feel" starts feeling like skid row and neighbors from heck.  Small, cozy, overfinished, quaint "pukey" homes, that are more expensive to build and maintain than the base model mcmansion.
> 
> ...



You may have a good point, but I gotta admit I don't understand most of the references in your post. You are writing to wood stove enthusiasts here. We know Stihl is not a metal alloy, but think Susanka is a brand of instant coffee!


----------



## benjamin (Nov 19, 2010)

House surface area is more important than house size in heat loss. A smaller complicated house can have more surface area, be harder to seal and insulate, cost more to maintain, and cost much more to remodel when styles change. 

Sarah Susanka wrote several books advocating smaller, better designed houses instead of the typical mcmansion with lots of cheap square footage. She argued that her homes were worth her architect's fee because they functioned so much better etc. She was really just making it fashionable for people to build smaller homes so they could afford to indulge their fancy and pretend to be rich, as her homes tended to be faddish and expensive. 

The problem with all of the arguments in favor of her philosophy is that they are based on the same assumption that the rest of the housing bubble was built on, that is a house is the best investment you will ever make and it will only grow in value. 

Housing is an asset that typically depreciates in value in addition to huge carrying costs. When mcmansions become obsolete they will be chopped up into duplexes like the victorian, craftsman and homes from other building booms. These "smaller cuter" homes will be just as obsolete but much harder to remuddle or update. 

With current technology it's very realistic for houses to be able to maintain a comfortable temperature range with negligible purchased energy. Superinsulation, solar, and/or thermal mass are the techniques that will allow this, but they favor larger buildings because of the ratio of surface area to enclosed space.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 19, 2010)

The "a large house can be efficient if built right" argument is ignoring the fact that a larger house takes more energy and raw materials to construct in the first place.

Unused space is still unused space, no matter how efficient it is to heat.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 19, 2010)

With the typical member here burning many cords of wood per winter, it doesn't seem like we have a shortage of materials or energy. The argument is what is the most efficient use of these materials. I argue that building new houses can be "green", especially if the homes are designed to be simple to build, simple to maintain and simple to reuse. Overly customized and personalized houses are more expensive to build, maintain and reuse. The size of the house is definitely a factor, but it's not as simple as smaller equals more efficient.


----------



## daveswoodhauler (Nov 19, 2010)

Its funny....we have a fam of 5 and live in 1800/ft
All our friends have much larger homes, and since we bought them all at the same time for a while I was jealous that we didn't have a bigger home.
Over time, everytime we would go to a friends house, they always had a "room" that was never used....you know the one with the nice furniture that the kids weren't allowed in 
Went to another friends house that is like 3500 ft, and they hate their big family room as its too costly to heat.
I have learned to love my little home.


----------



## Badfish740 (Nov 19, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> The "a large house can be efficient if built right" argument is ignoring the fact that a larger house takes more energy and raw materials to construct in the first place.



If you look at tract home construction from probably the 1980s on the "if it's built right" argument is a HUGE factor.  Look at any McMansion development or simply any large tract development closely and you can see just how poor the quality of the work can be.  Sure, they're using housewrap, gasket material, and better insulation, but if the work isn't done well it's all for naught.  Somewhere along the line people began to believe that they could afford a gigantic home for a relatively (compared to the size of the home) small price.  The reality was that they could afford it-because the quality of the work and the finishes was so poor.  If you ever have an opportunity to visit one of these monstrosities, go inside and look around-look closely.  Once you do you'll see wavy walls, bad tape joints, poor trim jobs with visible gaps in the joints, crooked tiles, and the list goes on.  The scary part is that's just what you can see!  My father-in-law is a project manager for a large design/build firm that does work in Morris and Bergen Counties where all of the Wall Street hotshots and other rich New York types live.  If you compare a 5000 square foot home in your average Toll Brothers, K Hovnanian, etc...development vs. a 5000 square foot home my father-in-law builds (which is arguably just as wasteful in many ways) the price per square foot difference is pretty dramatic.  If you were to break it down further you'd find that the price per square foot in terms of labor is HUGE.  Basically, McMansion development over the past 20-30 years or so not only has caused environmental problems, it's also been a boon to illegal workers and those that hire them/profit from them.    



> Unused space is still unused space, no matter how efficient it is to heat.



This goes back to the whole "how warm do you keep your house" thread.  Just like I wouldn't want to have to supply enough wood to keep my small house at 85 degrees, I wouldn't want to have to supply enough wood to keep a huge house with a 20' cathedral ceiling in the living room at 70 degrees either.  I feel like in many ways we're still working through the hangover caused by the decade long party of excess (McMansions, sub-prime mortgages, Hummer H2s, etc...) and more and more people are just coming to their senses.  Lots of people looked at me funny for aspiring to a small home on 20 acres with a large enough woodlot for fuel, raising chickens, putting up solar panels, etc...when the money to do all that could buy a 5 bedroom McMansion in the suburbs in a good school district.  Now more and more people think it's a much more interesting idea.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2010)

daveswoodhauler said:
			
		

> Its funny....we have a fam of 5 and live in 1800/ft
> All our friends have much larger homes, and since we bought them all at the same time for a while I was jealous that we didn't have a bigger home.
> Over time, everytime we would go to a friends house, they always had a "room" that was never used....you know the one with the nice furniture that the kids weren't allowed in
> Went to another friends house that is like 3500 ft, and they hate their big family room as its too costly to heat.
> I have learned to love my little home.


========
Sometimes it  Depends where you spend your time
I have a large home in the city with small yard ,since i have a small yard i spend most of my time in the house thus a large house.
I also have a small cabin in the country on  large lot,since i spend most of my time outside thus a small cabin.
And if you have 3 small kids like i do theres no such thing as unused rooms.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> The "a large house can be efficient if built right" argument is ignoring the fact that a larger house takes more energy and raw materials to construct in the first place.
> 
> Unused space is still unused space, no matter how efficient it is to heat.


If you have the money for a large home and thats what you want go for it. Whats the difference if you have a small house and then spend your extra money on cruises and travel,motorhomes,second homes,vacation homes, ect ect and other energy intensive endeavors anyway. Or if you have a large home and stay home and enjoy it.


----------



## webbie (Nov 19, 2010)

Sure, all true, but "large" is a relative word. So is energy efficient. Fact is that millions of those McMansions have already been built, often at less than stellar quality. Someone has to live in them. 

From what I hear, they are simply not selling in most areas. My parents today finally got an offer on their large home in SC.......however, the price is quite a loss for them (and they did not buy in the bubble!). There are literally tens of thousands of such homes just in the coastal are of SC, NC and Georgia.

I'm not saying large homes will stop existing. What I am saying is that average size of newly constructed homes is likely to decrease over the next decade or more. 

Sure, it's easy to fill a big house with a family and kids, however I know a lot of SINGLE people and couples (married and not) with no kids who own houses of 2500 Sq. Ft and larger. Carrying costs, also, are going to be a killer. This may be OK if your kids are in the local schools...you are getting a deal on those $6K property taxes in that case. But carrying costs can really hurt! 

When my dad told me today that his house had sold, I didn't ask how much. He asked me why I didn't ask. I told him it didn't matter - the big deal is that he is going to save 30K plus per year in taxes, country club, HOA, trash pickup, maintenance, etc......

The bigger picture part of all this - which relates very closely to "green" is that we have pretty much created this country so that even an 85 year old person cannot do daily activities without getting in a car. This differs greatly from Europe and many other countries. In other words, many of us live in suburban and rural-suburban areas, which often require multiple cars (often one per household member), and the roads and everything else that goes along. So the big McMansion ends up costing more than just the heating bill and the property taxes.

With stagnant wages and everything else, I just think that particular part of the American Dream is going to be out of reach of many (most) people.


----------



## btuser (Nov 19, 2010)

Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, we've just now run out of credit/savings.  I think there's going to be a trend toward deflation in the housing market (well, except for my neighborhood, we're special!) as energy costs really amp up.   I remember driving with my mom past our "old" house when I was six.  Even at six years old I knew it was a much nicer house in a better area  and was much bigger.  I asked why we moved and she bluntly said: "we couldn't afford to heat it."   That was the oil mess in the 70's.  Granted, it was over before most people had a decent wood pile to fall back on but its coming again and this time its going to stay, regardless of how efficient we can make our 4000sqft homes.

Its not just the cost of heating/cooling a larger home, but the cost of building a larger home is going to skyrocket.  The cost of wood, cement, roofing, siding, diesel for the equipment, glue for the OSB, everything is price right now on cheap oil.  The size of a come will be determined by the cost of energy.  If the price of heating oil goes to $10/gallon I doubt there will be many successful scroungers on this site.  I'll end up closing up part of the house and opening it in the Summer.  Can't wait to see what that will do to drywall!


----------



## Delta-T (Nov 19, 2010)

these are all the reason that I sit slack jawed when watching the Extreme Makeover. How, if these people could not afford to paint their house when it was 1200sq/ft, are they gonna pay to heat/cool/electrify/maintain their now 4500sq/ft monstrosity ? Again, it seems we have a severe deficiency in sense of the common variety, or maybe its just me.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2010)

WebM Wrote
"This may be OK if your kids are in the local schools…you are getting a deal on those $6K property taxes in that case. But carrying costs can really hurt!
When my dad told me today that his house had sold, I didn’t ask how much. He asked me why I didn’t ask. I told him it didn’t matter - the big deal is that he is going to save 30K plus per year in taxes, country club, HOA, trash pickup, maintenance, etc…..."

Made a lot of sense for your parents to downsize but for me, not so much.
Where your house is located is another variable, Im in a middle class neighborhood and My 3000 SF house Property taxes are $425 a year and The PA gambling revenue credit pays about a third of that. My Trash PU is $30 a month,heating & hot water $65 a month.   No country clubs or HOAs to deal with. Probably cost me more to downsize than im spending now as i have no mortgage now. The only way ill move is if i get a deal on a farmette.
I think most people losing houses today is due to not being able to keep up their mortgages more than high cost energy demand. They just cant afford the house payments and or they are so upside down its not worth it to keep paying. It truly is a tremendous waste of resources that some brand new houses may never be occupied and may have to be razed.


----------



## btuser (Nov 19, 2010)

My parents downsized too early.  They complained about the taxes and heat, but turned a blind eye to what they were giving up.   I couldn't get them to admit that the cost of selling+moving was about 10 years worth of heat, and that rent was going to be 3x their property taxes.  They felt good about the check however, at least untill the market collapsed.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 20, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> big McM
> With stagnant wages and everything else, I just think that particular part of the American Dream is going to be out of reach of many (most) people.



I just hate agreeing with you Craig, but you're right on this thread.  The American dream is as unsustainable as a lottery winner's budget or an Extreme Makeover project.  We can argue elsewhere about why, but the boom is over.  Houses will be smaller.  

I believe that smaller houses may suit some people, but many people will be better served by homes that are extravagantly sized by world and historical standards.  Energy use is far from the largest waste in NEW housing, even in sloppily built mcmansions.  Better and cheaper materials make size relatively less important than labor costs in the construction and maintenance of buildings.  (Some) People do pay a large premium to live in old houses or cute houses whether they admit it or not.     

Here's a funny example 
http://host.madison.com/lifestyles/home_and_garden/article_f730ecee-b132-11df-aaf3-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.madisonenvironmental.com/

This house may well function as promised, time will tell. Many of the features make good sense, cellulose super insulation, simple heating system for a tiny load etc. Time will also tell whether this house is sufficient or if it gets added onto at dramatically increased cost and complexity compared to new construction. 

I'll make the prediction that this house/kit/publicity stunt is a dead end and a complete waste of grant money.  The only innovation I have heard of in this project is a new measure of heating capacity: the "one hair dryer per floor".   It's gonna take quite a few hair dryers to power the ol Prius 100 miles one way from Viroqua to the office on the Capitol square.

edit: here's another article with a much better description of what is possible with mostly standard materials and technology.  This extreme doesn't make sense if you're burning wood, but it shows what is possible.  Notice that there is no mention of size, the requirements are per square foot, making it easier for bigger buildings to meet. 

http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/Articles_files/passivehouse.pdf


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 20, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> My parents downsized too early.  They complained about the taxes and heat, but turned a blind eye to what they were giving up.   I couldn't get them to admit that the cost of selling+moving was about 10 years worth of heat, and that rent was going to be 3x their property taxes.  They felt good about the check however, at least untill the market collapsed.



If they are trying to live off the interest from the "check" they must be having a tough time at .25-1%  Int rates. I never sit on cash to make money. Im still collecting 8-15% on every investment in ever made and some roll over and double overnight. Very simple to do. I buy the best piece of Real estate i can find and sell it and hold the mortgage.
Cheap houses are 15%, more expensive ones 8-10%. Whats the risk? Of course your buyers can default and you get the house back and sell it all over again,you actually make more when that happens. Iv got buyers from all walks of life School teachers,medical professionals,blue collar,retired,many of whom have an annual salary many times what mine is. even if your 80 years old its not that difficult to collect a mortgage,not like being a landlord.


----------



## kinshipknight (Nov 22, 2010)

So what happens to the McMansions of suburbia? Levelled for more smaller homes people can afford and that are more efficient?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 22, 2010)

kinshipknight said:
			
		

> So what happens to the McMansions of suburbia? Levelled for more smaller homes people can afford and that are more efficient?



The whole industry was built on a presumption of easy credit and good high paying jobs both of which will be in very short supply for some time. 
Would have made more sense to leave it as farmland. Pa is actively purchasing land use rights to farm land for quite some time now leaving to land in the care of farmers to farm but prohibiting its sale to developers. I guess were all paying for those empty houses with unemployment benefits ,added national debt, and all the costs associated with the collapse of the housing sector.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 22, 2010)

kinshipknight said:
			
		

> So what happens to the McMansions of suburbia?



Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, branch compounds for the Davidians and satelite communes for Heaven's Gate.


----------



## webbie (Nov 22, 2010)

It's a big country, and there are probably people to fill the McMansions in many areas - however, in others there are not!

Nothing happens instantly, but what is already happening is that the prices of these particular homes are coming down much more than, for instance, a townhouse or smaller house in the same area. My parents just sold theirs for about 1/2 price compared to 3-4 years ago. 

Some will be neglected and then, when the owners - buyers - or banks find out how much mold remediation, a new roof and other things will cost, they will walk away, auction or abandon them. There was an article about this already happening in some burbs (I think Charlotte, NC was one example).....

Oh, here is that article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/6653/

Notice that the article mentions a premium now being paid for urban living, when it was the opposite before! 

Don't hold this over my head later, but my intention is to retire in a place where I can walk and bike to 90% of the stuff that I need on a day to day basis.....there are quite a few such places around here, if I stay, or elsewhere if I do not. 

Good article, though....worth a read for those interested in macro trends.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 22, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> these are all the reason that I sit slack jawed when watching the Extreme Makeover. How, if these people could not afford to paint their house when it was 1200sq/ft, are they gonna pay to heat/cool/electrify/maintain their now 4500sq/ft monstrosity ? Again, it seems we have a severe deficiency in sense of the common variety, or maybe its just me.




There was a big discussion about this over at oldhouseweb recently. Its started off with fustration at the fact that they tore down a builtiful old log cabin that just needed some TLC to build a McMonstrosity... But then a few posters pointed to stories documenting how many EHM "winners" later end up loosing their houses anyway.  Feds tax the value as a windfall capital gain and then on top of it the new  house hits them with property taxes bigger than the old mortgage they were struggling to pay.

Just a scam to advertise home despot I guess...


----------



## benjamin (Nov 22, 2010)

Nice article Craig.

In most of the country we have another example of what happens when a form of housing becomes less fashionable and attracts a much less attractive grade of occupant, the mobile home park. I can only imagine what the mood was that spawned the apparent popularity of mobile homes in the 60's and 70's. It certainly wasn't cost, at least not any realistic life cycle cost. Remember Buckminster Fulller's designs and advocacy of lightweight houses? Was it the faith in technology? efficiency? I can just imagine similar half witted authors' praise for the new trend in housing, "maintenance free exterior, only the finest materials put together on an assembly line, aluminum windows that will never rot, modern heating and air conditioning for ultimate comfort, no need for an outmoded basement".

As the article states, the pendulum did swing pretty far away from urban towards suburban in postwar america. The article failed to mention the obvious causes, cheaper more comfortable automobile transportation, affordable new housing, and OVERPRICED OBSOLETE RUN DOWN OLD HOUSING. My grandfather bought a Victorian for $11,000 in 1955 in a foreclosure auction when Victorians were equivalent to the 70's houses of today. That seems like a bigger bubble than what we have seen in the midwest a few years ago. 

Certainly the pendulum has been swinging back toward urban, as the author noted and is promoting and exploiting to the best of his ability. And likely it will not swing as far toward the urban (if that is something that can be measured) because of the physical limitations on urban expansion and the result that urban development has a steeper price supply curve. Imagine our pendulum swinging on a 100' rope, it swung toward the suburban and now is swinging back toward the urban, downtown, smaller house, apartment, loft, etc. I predict that the increased cost of urban renewal (rebuilding utilities vs slapping them down in a cornfield, cumbersome city building departments, logistics of remodeling vs new construction) will act like a stop on the rope causing the pendulum to finish it's swing in a shortened arc with a jerky ride back to whatever the next fashion becomes.

One of the signs I see as evidence of the irrationality of the pendulums swing, is the recent infatuation with trains. This author goes even further promoting the superior construction of row houses to modern construction ?!?! The guy's been reading too much Jane Austin and not enough Dickens.


----------



## webbie (Nov 22, 2010)

I can assure you that row houses in Philly - where my wife grew up and where I was born, are far superior to most recent construction! Most were built in the post-war period 1950-1960.

I think a lot of these tendencies are regional - that is, the country is a big place! In this state - both parts of it (east and west), we have vast millions of sq ft of old factory buildings which can easily be converted. Many of these buildings are close to town centers due to the fact that the original workers had to walk, ride a bike, or ride a trolley. 

This is a resource our state has recognized and is engaged in developing. We have a statewide program where a town gets CASH from the state.....first for rezoning an area which is walkable, and secondly when the actual building permits are given. This program will probably be taken advantage of by most towns. 

The little town next to us, Easthampton, probably has enough mill space for 100's of residential units (maybe more) - and this is a town of 13,000.

As you probably know, cities are much greener in terms of energy used per person...than the rural areas. I think, for that reason, NY State, CT, MA and RI are the most energy efficient states in the USA (per capita)......

Urban living....to a certain point, is OK. I would not want the din of traffic, but I don't mind a higher density of housing and shops - as long as there are plenty of open spaces. Our place in RI is somewhat like that - the Island is quite heavily developed, but because we have water, beaches, thousands of acres of protected land (farms, nature reserves, etc.), it has a very high quality of life. That's probably a perfect scenario for high density........just jump on a kayak or boat and you are alone in the wild.

NYC...that would be way too much for me! I'm from philly, and we are used to always being close to Parks, etc. - I think Fairmout Park is one of the largest urban parks in the country (or was, at one time!).


----------



## benjamin (Nov 23, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> row houses in Philly... are far superior to most recent construction!
> ...post-war period 1950-1960.
> 
> 
> As you probably know, cities are much greener in terms of energy used per person...than the rural areas.



I believe there were some great buildings built at different time, and I didn't mean to pick on row houses, but I was comparing the new construction that was available in the 50's to the existing housing stock that was in pitiful shape. I assumed the author was referring to prewar housing. 

The nostalgic notion that they don't build them like they used to is partly true, materials change, but "plywood glue drying out", buildings falling down without drywall, and the weakness of shingled roofs? This guy is out of touch with the reality that new houses will require far less maintenance and far less energy than houses built at any time in the past.

Certainly factories can be converted to residential use and will be wherever there is a premium paid for that sort of charm, but I don't believe it is usually cost competitive with new construction and cost equals resources one way or another. 

The notion of cities being much greener because there is less energy used (directly) per person ignores the importation of food, raw materials and tax dollars, and the export of services.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 23, 2010)

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the notion that older houses are obsolete.

I'd put the build quality of a Victorian or colonial period house up against a modern house any day of the week.  When my wood clapboard siding gets worn I can repaint it. over and over again.  That wood has and can last centuries.  When vinyl starts to degrade from sun exposure in < 30 years you have to replace it... usually all of it as the colors and styles change so often you wont find matching replacements.

And what about all that foam everywhere.  Ever seen 30 year old styrofoam?  It crumbles to dust.

Dont even get me started on crappy aluminum windows....



The modern "low maintenance" house is a scam.  What they are selling are materials that CANNOT be maintained, so instead they have to be replaced... Far sooner than most folks realize.


----------



## webbie (Nov 23, 2010)

Here is one of our local conversions, although this has apartments - not condos.
http://eastworks.com/
It also has shopping, the motor vehicle office, lots of artists, karate, etc,

A lot of these places are set up for "live work" for artists and work at home people.....

This place:
http://opensquare.com/residential.php
is one town over and has electrical generation from the canals which go under the building! The CT river falls 60 feet at Holyoke, which is why the city was originally built (power) and there are millions of square feet.....MANY millions. You can buy the buildings for a song. 

Holyoke hasn't taken off yet like Northampton and Easthampton, but it is probably only a matter of time.......


----------



## begreen (Nov 23, 2010)

Restoring an old house is about as green as you can get. It's recycling resources that have already been spent.


----------



## Mainely Saws (Nov 23, 2010)

What the heck , I'll throw my 2 cents worth in on this subject . I think how a large home is used can determine if it's " green " or even cost effective . Years ago folks lived in large homes but had relatives living with them & they also had rooms that were closed off in the winter so they wouldn't have to heat them .  I have a fairly large home ( over 3500 sq.ft. ) BUT it is a duplex & the income pays for the taxes , water & sewer bill , insurance & sometimes there's a little left over that gets saved for when it's time to replace a roof or change out a furnace . The rental income also helped me to borrow money to build a 2000 sq. ft . two story garage that has housed my business for over 25 years . So , I have a large house but the actual living space for myself & wife ( kids are grown now ) is about 1000 sq. ft . Repairs & improvements can be tax deductible & there are numerous other advantages to owning this large house . If I were to sell the rental income can be factored in to loan which would make it more affordable to a prospective buyer . I know owning & living in a duplex has it's own pitfalls & is not everyones cup of tea but for me it has worked out well ..............


----------



## timfromohio (Nov 23, 2010)

We were lucky and flip/flopped house/yard size before real estate tanked.  In 2005 we moved from a large, McMansion-style house on 0.20 acres to a smaller, split-level built in 1970 on almost two acres.  During the same time, we had two kids.  So, we doubled our household and moved to a smaller, cheaper house.  How un-American!

Personally, I think some of the older neighborhoods like the one we live in are idea.  Smaller homes that can be made more energy efficient along with much larger yards that enable substantial food production.


----------



## webbie (Nov 23, 2010)

We were pretty much un-American until we moved up here and bought a new house - but, frankly, the only reason we bought new was that the housing boom was at peak and the prices they were asking for used houses was out of sight - really out of sight! 

It turns out, though, that a newer house built to code in MA. uses about 1/2 the energy for heating as my 50 year old house in NJ did. Big difference.....

Even before the last housing boom, many folks took as a sort of "religion" that you should live in the best house you can afford. We never bought into that, and instead fixed up our little house with additions, etc....until it was a really nice "medium" house by the time we left it (26 years). During the time we lived there, we wanted a second house "at the beach" in NJ, so we bought a very old duplex about a block from the beach. I did a lot of work making it livable and even then it was certainly not up to any modern standards...bu, heck, it was a beach house and our kids loved if for the 6 years or so that we had it. We were able to rent the rear unit quite often - either yearly or seasonal, and therefore the cost of keeping the house was almost negligible. 

It's interesting the my parents were VERY much up and coming back in 1959 when they moved from a row house to a tudor single in the burbs....but, still, my brother and I lived in the same room our entire upbringing! Today, the kids usually have their own room(s), as well as maybe an extra playroom or two. We did have the incredible luxury of our own (3 kids) bath, as our parents suite had theirs! All the row houses only had one bath upstairs - although many installed "flush up" toilets in the basements and converted those to play areas, etc.


----------



## timfromohio (Nov 23, 2010)

Our current home is just under 1800 square feet - the only way I could imagine a larger home would be to accomodate other family members.  There are big advantages, as many others point out, to this type of arrangement so long as all parties get along.  Would need fewer vehicles, lower heating/cooling costs, food would be cheaper (pooling resources to engage in bulk purchases), shared chores and activities, security, etc.  I expect there will be another thread in the not too distant future as a follow-up to the "houses getting smaller thread" - it will be "households getting larger", and it may not be all bad.

It will also be interesting to see if people begin to value more practical aspects of homes.  The McMansion trend brought multiple story great rooms and entry ways and walls of windows while features like full basements took a back seat, at least in that you had to pay extra for that feature whereas the wall-o-windows and two story great room came standard.


----------



## btuser (Nov 23, 2010)

Drive across the country on the back roads and you'll find towns that are deserted, buildings that have died, entire factories/economic ecosystems that have died.  The suburbs won't be any different.  The tractor drove more people off the land than the dust bowl.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 24, 2010)

I discussed this topic and The Atlantic article with a financial consultant who owns a CPA firm. The following is a paraphrase of his response:

"I can get to the same answer [small house] using financial analysis.  I have had several financial focused discussions on the wisdom of maintaining debt on a personal residence.  The main argument for it is to limit financial risk due to changes in the real estate market.  A balanced approach with respect to where wealth is held will result in a conclusion similar to the one in the article.  Specifically, reduce housing and energy expense in exchange for other financial goals.  To do this, one needs a home that is affordable (i.e. as small as reasonable, energy efficient, and close to work/life needs to limit transportation costs).

Predicting the future is nearly impossible.  Responsibly allocating resources today is possible and will have similar results."


----------



## benjamin (Nov 24, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Restoring an old house is about as green as you can get. It's recycling resources that have already been spent.



Or throwing good money after bad.  This is the work I do, and I spend too much time talking people out of cute houses that they've fallen in love with.  The only thing worse than wasting this time is when they ignore my advice, sink money into the dump, sink way more money into it and then lose it in foreclosure less than halfway through the project.  Nothing green about that.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 24, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> ... the only reason we bought new was that the housing boom was at peak and the prices they were asking for used houses was out of sight - really out of sight!
> 
> It turns out, though, that a newer house built to code in MA. uses about 1/2 the energy for heating as my 50 year old house in NJ did. Big difference.....



My point exactly, I commend Craig for his wise allocation of resources.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 24, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We get it. You don't like old.  To each his own.


----------



## btuser (Nov 25, 2010)

What you get with an older home is the lot.  I always liked the idea of someone in a horse and wagon pulling up to a spot on a dirt road and decided this is a good place to build a house.  Now we put houses where they shouldn't be, but get away with it because energy is cheap.   The big savings with renovation/restoration is historical, and I can understand the frustration of a flooring contractor trying to install 24" kitchen tiles in a 150 year old kitchen.


----------



## webbie (Nov 25, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, Benj, it's always hard to see the big picture!

You see, someone bought my old house....and is living in it using as much or more energy as I did........

Well, maybe they will take advantage of tax credits and do some upgrades! As it was, we had solar hot water, a nice fireplace with a stove in it, and a sun room designed for heat gain.


----------



## webbie (Nov 25, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> To do this, one needs a home that is affordable (i.e. as small as reasonable, energy efficient, and close to work/life needs to limit transportation costs).
> 
> Predicting the future is nearly impossible.  Responsibly allocating resources today is possible and will have similar results."



My daughter, who lives in the Bay Area, is looking to buy her first house there. Many, if not most, of the houses there fit these criteria  - that is, you can walk easily to the BART (train), walk to stores, etc....and, the houses are small. Of course, given the weather out there, energy costs are low.

Because of all those factors, the prices of houses are through the roof! I'm telling her to consider NOT buying (renting). Even after the so-called Real Estate Crash, here are some examples of housing prices there....

1. Tiny (1000 sq ft) single story house in heavily urban transitional neighborhood (we'd call that a slum....slums look different in Ca. than elsewhere).
$250,000+
2. Same tiny house in Berkeley instead of Oakland (less crime, more "hip")
$400,000+

She's single. She also is quite smart (lawyer and engineer), yet she seems to be buying into the Realtors nonsense about housing being "a good investment". I'm trying to drum it into her head that her first criteria should be that the place should be somewhere she wants to live, and a step up from where she lives now. Unfortunately, that is hard to do - because although she has a basement apartment, it is in the hills of Berkeley and backs up to the Rose Garden (famous park). It is also in walking distance of some major parks which extend deep into the hills. 

Anyway, the point is that your CPA is right! The market is starting to understand that a house which is located with access to transportation and other needs...has more value! Of course, the California weather helps a bit with the value too!


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 25, 2010)

I've owned houses built in 1920, 1946, 1999 and a cabin built in 1952.   Construction methods were similar and I have to believe that they were all built with cost in mind.  The older houses were all of better quality than the one built in 99, but I have to believe that it was quality of materials available.  Looking at the old 2x4s and the new 2x4s available and you can see a difference in quality.  I also believe plaster is better than drywall, but I suppose that is open to argument.

I don't believe that the framer sawing off the end of a board did anything different with a handsaw than a modern one does with a miter saw.  

Matt


----------



## jebatty (Nov 25, 2010)

Many of the older lake and woods vacation cabins represent some of the best small house design, and when properly insulated, also represent some of the most energy efficient small homes. These cabins are square or mildly rectangular. They have a very open design, basically two sides, one for living space and the other for kitchen and bedroom(s), with a bathroom stuck wherever there was left over space, then a hallway between the two sides, and finally a front and back door at each end of the hallway. They also usually were built to take advantage of a natural sight line and the long summer days, which would mean if possible a southerly or southwesterly exposure so that the warm sun would shine in on the long and cool summer afternoons and evenings.

Because they were square, they had minimal outside walls to interior area, and therefore had minimal heat loss to the outside. The southerly exposure guaranteed passive solar gain. Because money often was short, they had none of the multiple gables, high ceilings, multiple wings, etc., that are now common in the conspicuous, non-functional style of the "modern" McMansions built by the nuvo rich of today's lake and vacation crowd.

This style of building would do well today to provide efficient, inexpensive, and livable small homes.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 25, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems like your clients have eyes bigger than their wallets  
THis is also the work I do as well, last year i restored a 100 year old small house, half a duplex. I used blown in cellulose insulation on Feb 1 It turn out so well the house never went below 50 for the rest of the winter,even with no heat on at all. Did get some heat from the shared middle wall but not much as i insulated some of those as well for sound. Depends how thorough you are. For about $300 in recycled newspaper insulation the house is greener than it ever was.Got a great deal on good windows,had to take them all 12 windows for $540. I can also put an inch of foamboard under the siding when it goes on but it may not be cost effective at this point. Old homes can be green,greener than new homes in some cases.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 25, 2010)

trump said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't hid the fact that I have strong feelings on the subject. I have nothing against folks who want modern or think modern is better. I just wish they would leave old houses to those of us who want to restore them for their innate value as a historic old house.  If you want new buy new. Dont buy an old house and gut it to put in all modern details. 

Now on the other hand this is not to say that old hose folks dont care about being green. We do. Just go to any old house site like oldhouseweb and old house journal and you will see we have many lively discussions about retrofitting old homes for more energy efficiency while maintaining their character.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 25, 2010)

A few years ago we visited my German cousin's friend, who owned an old farmhouse on a working farm. The house was mostly built of stone, very thick walls, doorways about 5' high. By government regulation (yes, government acted to preserve the German cultural heritage and intruded on people's lives) the house exterior had to remain in its original character, so that from the outside you could not tell that anything had changed. Certain interior characteristics also had to be preserved, but with that, the house was fully modernized, insulated, electrified, appliances, heat, etc. of first class, modern character. I also feel certain that codes of very high standard had to be met on the finished, restored and updated house.

Energy efficiency is only one element of many important elements, not all of which are easy valued in money terms. Culture, heritage, tradition, character also have substantial value to a people who value who they are and who they want to be. It often takes government to intervene to protect these other values, because the capitalism market only values that on which a profit can be made. If there is no profit to be made, capitalism sees no value, because it reduces everything to a commodity. Beauty, character, culture, heritage, tradition, etc. cannot be commoditized to realize the fullness of their value to a people and a culture.

This old house can be a very fine house, indeed.


----------



## btuser (Nov 26, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> I've owned houses built in 1920, 1946, 1999 and a cabin built in 1952.   Construction methods were similar and I have to believe that they were all built with cost in mind.  The older houses were all of better quality than the one built in 99, but I have to believe that it was quality of materials available.  Looking at the old 2x4s and the new 2x4s available and you can see a difference in quality.  I also believe plaster is better than drywall, but I suppose that is open to argument.
> 
> I don't believe that the framer sawing off the end of a board did anything different with a handsaw than a modern one does with a miter saw.
> 
> Matt



This pretty much sums up how I feel.   I read a an article once about a restoration after a fire where the homeowner demanded full replacement of the original home.  It got to the point they were using cut nails and wood lathe to re-plaster the home.  Now, some people may think this is cute but I think this guy was an A**H*LE! Its an insult to craftsmen to think they'd waste their time when there was a better way of doing things.  When I was working aerial construction I could still climb poles and use a a hand drill (we called it a wiggle stick, a lot lighter than a gasoline powered drill but would wear you out a lot quicker!) if I had to,  but I wouldn't spit on a bucket truck and power drill if it was available to me.  Plaster is better than drywall, but you can skimcoat drywall too.  Both walls have to be straight, which leads me to the conclusion that a carpenter used to build the whole house, and was only screwing himself later if he cheated today.  Now its an endless parade of screw-you till the landscaper gets the last check.  Premade moldings are great and probably cheaper than having someone make them on sight with a block plane.  I've done it, its fun, and you're proud of yourself.  But it doesn't pay anymore.  

Stone foundations are much stronger in compression than concrete, but no so good at keeping out water.  Asphalt roofs are ugly but are pretty much maint. free compared to a thatch or shake roof, and about 1/10th the cost of slate or copper.   I'd rather have an older house for the location but I'd rather have plywood than balloon framing.  Anyway you look at it none of this stuff will last forever.


----------



## webbie (Nov 26, 2010)

I got over most of my old house desires because I was a remodeling contractor who often fixed up others "dreams" for them.

I also was in demolition for years, and tore down many oldies.

As with anything else, there are goodies and baddies. In my case, I was working in Bucks County, PA...so when we are talking old...this is OLD. We're talking floor joists with hand-hewn sides - likely turning to dust, and 7 ft ceilings (easier to heat). We also lived in a nice house up that way- high end older construction...solid stone and brick. The inside walls of that house just radiated cold in the winter!

I love vintage stuff as long as someone else owns it......or, I guess, as long as the owners have unlimited money and pay me for constantly fixing it up! In the case of two of my clients back there in Bucks County - well, they don't call it "Bucks" County for naught. Money was just paper to those clients....

No doubt that some building materials (studs, joists) have gotten worse in quality. However, if you do your homework and pay a little more, you can often find better lumber than the min. which meets code. 

I sorta like plywood also, but even that has been cheapened greatly. I sheathed my shop addition with plywood from 84 Lumber, and this stuff started delaminating from just the dew in the morning (before tar paper was on). It rained lightly once and I thought I was gonna have to rip the stuff off....I ended up running up there and stapling down all the delaminated parts. 

I think a contractor or homeowner has to so their homework these days to avoid getting junk. It's a whole science in itself (lumber grades, etc.).


----------



## benjamin (Nov 26, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's always hard to see the big picture, that's why "wise allocation of resources" is a better standard than the mythical "green". 

Sure somebody bought your old house, but if they didn't pay an "out of sight" price for it hopefully they were able to make improvements that brought it closer to a modern standard of comfort and efficiency instead of playing the tax credit game and doing improvements as dictated by bureaucrats not economics. 

Now if everyone had the knowledge and wisdom to wisely allocate resources, then many more small, old or obsolete houses would be dismantled and replaced with new housing. Even the amish, who don't seem to be overly enamored of the latest fads, will often tear down an old house in order to build a new one a few feet away.

It was the author of the Atlantic article who had the undue nostalgic reverence. I have nothing against old houses, I own one fine house that's about 80 years old and live in a converted barn that's around 100 years old, but these were exceptional structures which happened to have attributes that allowed them to be updated easily. In general, I believe that most old structures are economically obsolete and would be better off being replaced by new structures at some point. Very few buildings are truly built to last, especially in this country whole cities were thrown up in a matter of a few short years in boom times that made the last decade look like the economic dark ages.


----------



## benjamin (Nov 26, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I feel your pain Craig, young people especially have never known a world other than ridiculously inflating house prices. So many have no perspective on how far housing prices could continue to fall. 

Especially in a market as trendy as the Bay area, maybe you should borrow a lesson from Wall Street, "buy on the rumor and sell on the news". The rumor has been pretty strong that mass transit and urban hipness is the economic boom of the future. I'm here to tell you that the news is it's time to sell, not buy, especially for someone who is young, smart (though not focused on housing) and ambitious, and considering buying into an old rumor.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 28, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> floor joists with hand-hewn sides - likely turning to dust



Why should they turn to dust?  When kept dry wood can last almost indefinitely... My house is built of hand hewn lumber and its not crumbling at all, except for the poorly built 1970s addition that didn't have proper drainage and clearance to grade. Across town there is a house from 1680 that's also not falling down. Still an owner occupied private home.

As with anything else its all a matter of proper preventative maintenance. Old homes do NOT have to be falling apart wrecks or maintenance nightmares. I guess for some reason a lot of you had many run ins with folks who got in over their head or tried to rescue homes that had been abused.. which is a shame.  But there really are a lot of nice, well maintained, perfectly livable old homes out there.... maybe someday you will see an example that changes your mind. 

I guess I see now why so many old house lovers try to get their homes onto the historic register so they cant be demolished by a future owner....


----------



## DBoon (Nov 28, 2010)

A big part of the problem with any house, new or old, is that many owners don't realize the ongoing maintenance that is required of a home.  These people should be renters, but they are not.  

I've known more than a few people who aspired to a 3000 to 4000 square foot McMansion (and bought it) without wanting to hear that the water heater would need replacement in 6-8 years, the roof in 15-20 years, the windows in 20 years, etc. etc.  These time frames are all so beyond what they believe will be required while they own the house.  Yet, sooner or later, someone (like them) will own that house someday and will defer needed maintenance because they spent their money on the mortgage payment or something else.   The home will decay until it is an "eyesore" and need to be torn down.  I believe that McMansions will see this process accelerated since they lack any character that makes people desire to improve them, and since they are built so cheaply (overall) to begin with.  

I looked at a perfectly nice 30 year old home in South Salem, NY about 8 years ago and there were roof leaks in the living room and bathroom.  The drywall ceilings were caving in and they put plywood under them to keep them up.  This was a 30 year old house that had been treated as if it were a car meant to be used for 10 years and then discarded, or else the owners bought more house than they could afford and couldn't afford to maintain it.  The value of the "house" was essentially the value of the lot - nothing had been maintained.  What a waste. 

My 1250 square foot 1920's vintage home home has original windows, and they still work great.  How many "new" homes with vinyl windows will be able to say that in 90 years?  Not many, I am guessing.  All I have needed to do was add sprung bronze weatherstipping to them, and some EPDM gaskets.  This home has had four owners in 90 years - it never turned over much since it is a beautiful home with character that is inspiring to be in (people tell me this, I'm not making it up).  It has been well cared for all by all the owners.  All it would have taken was one "bad" owner who didn't maintain it for 30 years and it would have been one of those "terrible old homes" that needed to be torn down and replaced with something designed for a 40 year lifespan.


----------



## pugetsoundwa (Nov 29, 2010)

We almost bought a newly remodeled house built in 1910. Beautifully redone. The distance to work was too much and only 1 bathroom. We ended up with a new house, finished in Jan 09 that we bought in Aug 09, had never been lived in. 1250 sq ft is plenty for us as we use the garage as storage to keep the house cluttter free. its one of the smaller houses in our gated community of Clearwood. Bought it for almost 40,000 less then original asking price and got a 8,000 tax credit. Side point alot of the larger homes are now empty and for sale....


----------



## billb3 (Nov 29, 2010)

I think a lot of people buy an old home and spend  a lot of money and waste a lot of resources turning it into something it was never designed to be.  
I could easily have done that with my old  1920 house.


I downsized to under 900 square feet in 1999.
Took the  capital hit.
I'm staying here.
It was built over a hundred years ago.
Any serious changes or upgrades would mean tearing it down and starting over.
property taxes are almost 3 grand, though.

I see a lot of people  able to afford the additions they've always wanted but couldn't afford until the kids moved out go ahead with them  with an empty nest and really don't need them any more. If anything  what they needed was  fewer rooms, not more.

Mcmansions are nice, but to never save anything and put it all into a house  that in theory only is an investment is rather risky.
Course, I've seen pensions  disappear into thin air and   401K money, too, so what do I know.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 29, 2010)

I would be interested in seeing the floor layouts for those of you who have small homes, certainly 1500 sq ft or less. That might provide some good ideas to others who would be interested in seeing how this might work for them. Also, the availability of a basement likely is impt, for storage if nothing else.


----------



## midwestcoast (Nov 29, 2010)

DBoon said:
			
		

> A big part of the problem with any house, new or old, is that many owners don't realize the ongoing maintenance that is required of a home.  These people should be renters, but they are not...



+1 and add to that the problem of these more casual owners re-modelling or putting on additions that not only don't jive with the original design, but are poorly constructed & excelerate the deterioration of the rest of the house.  Bad DIYers and bad contractors both to blame IMO.  It only takes 1 bad roof job or addition to let water in & destroy a home.  
The original builders of my home didn't care much for insulation or air-sealing, but the materials were good & it was built to last. The only really bad workmanship I've found has been from reno work.


----------



## semipro (Nov 29, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> I would be interested in seeing the floor layouts for those of you who have small homes, certainly 1500 sq ft or less. That might provide some good ideas to others who would be interested in seeing how this might work for them. Also, the availability of a basement likely is impt, for storage if nothing else.



Sarah Susanka (http://www.susanka.com/) is a pretty good resource for building smaller.


----------



## pugetsoundwa (Nov 29, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> I would be interested in seeing the floor layouts for those of you who have small homes, certainly 1500 sq ft or less. That might provide some good ideas to others who would be interested in seeing how this might work for them. Also, the availability of a basement likely is impt, for storage if nothing else.



Wish I could find a way to. Basically Its a typical rambler, Kitchen, dining and living room all 1 area...small hallway with 2 bedrooms on left and 1 bathroom and master on right. 1 extra full bath off of master. small landry room that shares door with main room on one side and a door to garage on other wall. But for wife and I with a few small dogs and cats its the right size. No basement as water table is too high. We do have one of the larger yards however which is nice except for mowing..lol


----------



## pglotov (Jan 4, 2011)

I live in Bay Area, and have bought an old (built in 1958) house about 2 years ago. Since I hadn't had any experience with houses at all prior to that, I didn't care much about house structure proper, it just felt great to have one. Well 2 years later I have done so much fixing and construction it felt like second job for periods of time. You say weather is nice here - it is, but houses are equally less insulated, so I hear my neighbors running heat pump constantly during winter nights. When I was replacing my roof with metal and was tearing old (tar and gravel) roof off, the only insulation the roof had was 1.5" of some kind of foam - and thats it: gravel,  felt paper, 1.5" foam, wood deck - and you are inside the house ! I was so astonished to see it. Anyway, when I read posts from people from north-east I see that construction quality is much better up there, and CA houses could've had nearly zero heat costs if only they were built to northeast building codes.





			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## btuser (Jan 4, 2011)

What about taxes driving us towards smaller homes?  Bankrupt municipalities are going to start sqeezing harder.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Jan 5, 2011)

btuser said:
			
		

> What about taxes driving us towards smaller homes?  Bankrupt municipalities are going to start sqeezing harder.



No doubt.  15 of the 17 towns in our county are handing out double digit property tax increases this year.


----------



## pyper (Jan 5, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> kinshipknight said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Restrictive covenants will preclude that anyplace where there's an active HOA.

I've read Sarah Susanka's books and I think they're great. Her basic message has nothing to do with investment or anything of the sort. It's that you can _spend_ the same amount of money and end up with a house you enjoy much more.

You can build a house that's smaller, but higher quality (trading off size for quality at a given price point). And with good design, a smaller house can _seem_ larger than a bigger house. My wife and I have been house shopping, and some of the houses definitely give you a better feel than some of the others. It's no surprise to me that those houses were designed by architects. No silver bullet there though -- architects build plenty of duds, too.

The house we're looking at now is 1600 feet on the main floor and 600 feet in the basement. I think it's about right, size wise, but the design is less than perfect. We need a somewhat larger space than most people because my wife requires a music studio for teaching lessons. One thing those high ceilings *can* be good for is acoustics. 

Some old houses are good quality, some are not so good. The house we live in now was built in 1940 and the joists and rafters are both undersized. Everything is sagging. Most of it wasn't square or plumb when it was built (In one spot the studs were four inches closer together at the top than the bottom. Those old studs burn good, btw. ;-)


----------



## btuser (Jan 7, 2011)

pyper said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Covenant smovenant.  A town that's dying isn't going to stop people from living in it, no matter what the neighbors think/do/say.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 7, 2011)

During the Depression of the 30's many homes and farms simply were abandoned - ghosts on the landscape. Some of those are still barely standing. That same thing may happen to the cheap, gaudy, pretentious McMansions of today built in a suburbia or rural area too far from anything.


----------



## Mcbride (Jan 7, 2011)

Since I need a large shop for work.
And also planned to build a new house this spring.
I combined the best of both worlds.
Its cheaper to build up, than out, plus a house sitting higher has a better view where we plan to build.
And its also easier and more cost effective to heat.
So we are building a house, that sits on a full sized shop.
Added bonus is reducing chance of theft from house during daytime, as I will just be downstairs.
And from shop at night, as I will be sleeping right above it.


----------



## semipro (Jan 7, 2011)

Mcbride said:
			
		

> Since I need a large shop for work.
> And also planned to build a new house this spring.
> I combined the best of both worlds.
> Its cheaper to build up, than out, plus a house sitting higher has a better view where we plan to build.
> ...



My shop is in the basement of our house.  One problem we have is dust and odors coming up through the drywall into the living space.  I hope you seal your shop really well.


----------



## Mcbride (Jan 8, 2011)

Semipro said:
			
		

> Mcbride said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes we plan to seal it very well, and also put noise insulation between the two, as the shop can be very loud at times.


----------



## begreen (Jan 8, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> During the Depression of the 30's many homes and farms simply were abandoned - ghosts on the landscape. Some of those are still barely standing. That same thing may happen to the cheap, gaudy, pretentious McMansions of today built in a suburbia or rural area too far from anything.



That'd be a shame and a waste. I would much rather see them converted to more affordable, multiple family homes.


----------



## dougstove (Jan 9, 2011)

The problem with converting suburbia or ex-urbia to multi-unit housing is the sprawl.
By design many of the newer developments were made to be accessible only by personal automobile, with layouts incompatible with public transport.
Zoning bylaws ensure there is no local employment and no local services.
     NIMBYism by the economic survivors will maintain the artificial separation between work and home.

Since multi-unit housing would, on average, serve lower income residents, the lack of transport is going to be a big problem.
I am already reading of rural and semi-rural people unable to take advantage of available jobs because the pay does not cover the commuting costs.
The real price of oil is going up,  ending the use of cheap gas to support dispersed living for lower income people.
For most of history, ordinary people lived close to their work.  I think the 20th century sprawl anomaly is coming to end.  Except for those who can telecommute.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 10, 2011)

> I think the 20th century sprawl anomaly is coming to end.  Except for those who can telecommute.



And most of "those" likely will be in China, India, Africa, etc. where the economics of pay, culture and lifestyle provide a higher profit return to the multi-national employer -- another factor that will bring the sprawl to a forced and abandoned end.


----------



## pyper (Jan 11, 2011)

btuser said:
			
		

> pyper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doesn't have anything to do with "a town." 

Restrictive covenants are contracts. All that matters is what the judge thinks. You figure a judge will side with a landlord over a homeowner when the law is on the side of the homeowner? I think it's more likely that the banks that take the properties back eventually sell them at big discounts and the taxpayer supplies the difference. Either that, or the bond holders eat the loss.


----------



## benjamin (Jan 12, 2011)

Homeowners associations won't last long in abandoned developments. Look at what's happening to condo associations. I'm sure no one thought that the grand old houses of yesteryear would be chopped up either.  

It's the human tendency toward self delusion that contributes to bubbles, manias etc.  

I think its much more likely that sprawl will be "repurposed" than abandoned and replaced with Susanka inspired cottages or row houses.  I don't buy the pet theory that urban life is somehow more "sustainable".


----------



## DBoon (Jan 12, 2011)

> Look at whatâ€™s happening to condo associations.



What exactly is happening to condo associations?


----------



## pyper (Jan 12, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> Homeowners associations won't last long in abandoned developments.



But how many abandoned developments are there?

I've seen a lot of developments that were never built out, especially in Florida, but I haven't run across one that's been abandoned. I went and looked at a house recently where the developer had gone bankrupt. The new developer, who bought the entire development out of bankruptcy, put the longest set of restrictive covenants on that I've ever seen. It's more than 20 pages and details things like the type of mailbox post you have to have!

The thing is though, HOA's don't just disappear. They are made up of the property owners (frequently with the undeveloped lots having more vote than the built), and the only way you can get rid of them is to change the covenants, which usually requires majority vote of a quorum. Maybe the HOA isn't active today, but that doesn't mean it won't rise from the ashes in two years and start enforcing the covenants. The fact that no one has done anything about violations today does not invalidate the covenants tomorrow.

Sometimes someone with deep pockets will end up winning in a situation like this, just because they're willing to appeal the initial decision and the other party isn't, and you could have those deep pockets on either side -- maybe it's a big developer comes in and buys all the undeveloped lots and takes the individuals who own the carved up units to court. Or it could be a big company that's doing the carving and individuals who want to stop him. 

I think you're exactly right about the grand old houses of the past getting cut up -- that's exactly why people have come up with these types of covenants. Restrictive covenants are a tool that property owners can use to protect property values. You're right that they might choose to not make the effort, but they might.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 12, 2011)

> I think youâ€™re exactly right about the grand old houses of the past getting cut upâ€”thatâ€™s exactly why people have come up with these types of covenants. Restrictive covenants are a tool that property owners can use to protect property values.



What is really bizarre here is that I live in a rural area, no developments, no covenants, all single family, and most homeowners are private property rights fanatics -- object to ordinances on setbacks, height, road right of ways, emergency access, or anything else, also designed to protect property values as well as safety issues. Then these same homeowners buy a place in FL or AZ in a rubber stamp development, with not only ordinances but also covenants up the kazoo, house color, mailboxes, no parking, landscape, etc. -- can't do a darn thing -- and they say the love it. Maybe the trick is to impose ordinances governing everything, just like a set of highly restrictive covenants, and then we will have happy property owners.

On the other hand, while possibly intended to protect property values, covenants all are designed to keep out of the development "the wrong kind of people" and promote a certain "culture," and when property values drop, as currently, the covenants are a major impediment to rescuing a gargantuan, unsustainable development, and giving it a chance to morph into something which is reasonable and sustainable, it that is even possible.


----------



## Mcbride (Jan 12, 2011)

I would not ever live where they have restrictions on what I can do.
I will build what I want, paint it the colour i like, etc.
So I need not worry about ever living in a subdivision like those mentioned.

But to each their own.


----------



## Nic36 (Jan 12, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > I think youâ€™re exactly right about the grand old houses of the past getting cut upâ€”thatâ€™s exactly why people have come up with these types of covenants. Restrictive covenants are a tool that property owners can use to protect property values.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say that was bizarre. I would actually say that is the way it should be. If they want to live in a controlled subdivision, that it the best place for them. Those that live in rural areas have moved there so they specifically will not be dictated to. Although, I understand what your saying, typically homeowners in subdivisions with covenants complain about the restrictions and rural landowners complain about their neighbors with two or three junk cars in the yard.

I fall into neither category, but in between. I live on the edge of the city, inside the city limits. No covenant per se, but some things are not allowed, which I like. No mobile homes are allowed. Existing ones are still allowed to stay, but new ones are not. A neighbor would not be allowed to open a junk yard next to me, just things like that. But, I have great neighbors, and that makes a big difference no matter where you live.


----------



## benjamin (Jan 12, 2011)

DBoon said:
			
		

> > Look at whatâ€™s happening to condo associations.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is happening to condo associations?



http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/condo-association-files-bankruptcy.html

When a buyer defaults on a condo mortgage, the bank is not required to pay association fees and when the mortgage goes through forclosure the leins (unpaid dues) are "stripped" leaving the declining number of paying members of the condo association to pick up the increasing tab.

Banks are protected to some small degree, condo associations are not.

I don't know of any abandoned developments, so far.  Most of this is purely speculative.  The closest thing to abandoned property is the huge "shadow inventory" of property that banks have an interest in but haven't foreclosed because they don't want to face the loss.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 12, 2011)

> I wouldnâ€™t say that was bizarre.



What I meant to say is that the person who lives in my area and "demands" private property rights, criticizing every ordinance affecting her property, is the same person having the winter home in FL or AZ, living in a development with endless restrictions, and then asserting that development living is great in FL or AZ while local living is taking away private property rights. Perhaps a bit disingenuous and hypocritical?


----------



## Nic36 (Jan 12, 2011)

Yeah, I had an idea what you were getting at. Yeah, it is hypocritical.....in my opinion. I deal with those types in my job quite often.


----------



## jjames (Jan 18, 2011)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> I've owned houses built in 1920, 1946, 1999 and a cabin built in 1952.   Construction methods were similar and I have to believe that they were all built with cost in mind.  The older houses were all of better quality than the one built in 99, but *I have to believe that it was quality of materials available*.  Looking at the old 2x4s and the new 2x4s available and you can see a difference in quality.  I also believe plaster is better than drywall, but I suppose that is open to argument.
> 
> I don't believe that the framer sawing off the end of a board did anything different with a handsaw than a modern one does with a miter saw.
> 
> Matt



Part of it is material quality, but part of it is technique.

I cannot stand gong to he mc-lumber store and looking for a straight, uncrowned, unwarped "2x4". (and should you be successful, you can bet our botttom $ that it isn't seasoned, and it's still pine.

Go read some Eric Sloane (Reverence for Wood) and you will begin to learn the difference.

My place was orignially built in 1890 and the timber construction still amazes me.
The original ceder shingling is still in FAR better shape than the garbage composite board that was used for the 1960's addition.


Mortise and tenon contruction is going to beat stick framing hands down all day no comparison.

Somewhere there is a marrying of tehcnology, technique, and archaic wisdom that is the best of all worlds. The problem isn't so much scarcity of reasources as it is wise use of resources. Actually stewardship of resources would be a better term than use.


----------



## homieg9999 (Jan 22, 2011)

Back to the small house stuff: 

If you are interested check out Ross Chapin.  My inlaws found his website when looking for ideas on what to build on their property in Maine.

Also, for Christmas, they received a book about built in furniture.  My wife and I borrowed it and looked through it...and got lots of ideas.

We have a house built in the early 1920's, bungalow style, balloon framing, but materials seem MUCH better than the crap you can get today (at least from home depot and the like).  Generally the only time we complain about something being wrong is something the POs did in the remodel approx 10-15 years ago.  The house was built right in respect to the chimney - center of house, from basement to roof; so we pull a nice strong draft .  The footprint of the basement is approx. 23x28, as is the first story, and the "finished attic" is quite a bit smaller due to the 6 ridge height (interior).  Given our "quaint" and "modest" square footage we have looked to alternative ideas to gain space (i.e. built-ins and recessing things behind walls).  We know this is going to limit us if we ever want to move stuff around, but once kids roll around it's going to be even tougher (and we'll have to put in knee wall storage upstairs).  One good thing that has come from having a smaller house is that we've had to downsize the amt. of "stuff" we have - especially clothes.

Please don't take this as complaining - we love our house, and we enjoy the challenge (or at least I do - not so much the Mrs.), and it's much easier to heat/cool than a bigger house would be!

And after looking at some of your taxes on here...ours seem absurd for the size of our house - but that's because we're in the great state of NEW JERSEY!  If it wasn't for friends, family, and a decent job (math teacher) we'd be out of here in no time.


----------



## btuser (Jan 22, 2011)

I was recently in the bowels of an old mill building.  The floors were 8" thick, tounge and groove boards straddled 6-8' between 24-36" beams.  All pegged, all mortised, and still standing.  We would never, ever build this way today because we don't have to.  Can you imagine moving a 40' beam into place, or installing an 8" thick floor?  Sorry, I'll admit that the old-growth lumber is far superior but they only built with wood of this dimension when you had to saw wood by hand/steam.  Post and beam saved time/effort when wood was plentiful yet hard to get.  You used mortise and tennon joinery when nails were expensive and 2 days away in town.   building box joints with plywood is very strong compared to the amount of wood invested in the structure.  

Of course, if I had my choice I'd rather live in a post+beam house with big beautiful chestnut beams...


----------



## homieg9999 (Jan 22, 2011)

Post and Beam is probably my #1 favorite style.  I love the look of the wood and the huge picture windows.  It's cool to see the joints too, it's like being able see the suspension in an Ariel Atom - you are watching it work.


----------



## benjamin (Jan 22, 2011)

homieg9999 said:
			
		

> Back to the small house stuff:
> 
> 1920's, bungalow style, balloon framing...
> 
> ...



You wanna bet?  Do a heat loss calculation and see where the heat is really going, those knee walls are costing you a small fortune.  If you had already properly sealed and insulated them, you'd be so sick of those sleazy, ignorant, short sighted contractors from the 20's that you wouldn't be so nostalgic

I love post and beam frames too, and so do the bats in the attic, which is the only place you'll see it in my place.


----------



## homieg9999 (Jan 22, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> homieg9999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My house was sealed up through an incentive by the gas company - which took care of draft issues (not that I thought it was bad before:  went from about 4500 cf/hr to about 2500 cf/hr -(I am pretty sure that unit is per hour, I could be wrong)  The house isn't insulated the best, but my gas bill with a new furnace (97% efficient) averages $500 for the year (that was last year w/o the wood stove and before seal up, and a gas stove).  That's why when people tell me to buy wood, I tell them it's not worth it, I'll just use my furnace.

The knee walls could probably be insulated better, but I'm not doing any work up there until we decide what we are doing with the upstairs.  We can't decide between putting a full second story on (really don't want to due to cost, tax increase, and work involved), building a dormer on the back side of the roof (not sure of the tax repercussions), or just leaving it the way it is and installing built in dressers for when we have kids to save space (cheapest way to go), and they'll just have to share the upstairs loft area.


----------

