# Here's a good trend - smaller houses (cottages)



## webbie (Jul 20, 2008)

http://tinyurl.com/5ndcp4

Of course, the price of these cottages is high, but that makes it even better in some way...because the buyers are folks who COULD take up a lot more room, but choose not to.....

Maybe this will be become the newest fad and spread everywhere.....$99,000 for a 1,000 sq foot house

(actually, those are the prices for brand new homes in the boonies of central FL where I visited my sister this year)


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 20, 2008)

While I'm in support of efficient energy/resource use, I have been for 60 years, mostly because a was born poor, I can't see any sense in paying more for less.  I can understand paying more for quality, so it is possible for me to "buy" a smaller home for a high price if it is loaded with quality features/hardware/style/whatever is worth more investment.

The article you linked may get to that, but with my slow reading ability I quit after the first few paragraphs which seemed to say some find it rational to pay more for less.  They may be the same bunch that applaud the high cost of gas as it will help cut down on carbon waste, unless we count in all the carbon dumped by Gore and our Presidential candidates, who pay whatever it takes to keep consumption up.


----------



## Poult (Jul 20, 2008)

http://www.rosschapin.com/Projects/projects.html
That's the web page that shows some of the developments they've done.

It's nice that house size can go in another direction.  I put a 726²'  addition on my house ten years ago and find most of the time I use just that space.  Can't imagine a family in one, but then I have a lot of "stuff" (read:  Junk).

One thing I find odd about the developments is the tiny yards they are on.  And the commons they talk about are nothing more than a few dozen feet wide.  Spaces like that I couldn't tolerate.  Probably to city people that's fine and dandy, but it's not for me.  I can do the small house, but I want elbow room between me and someone else.

Poult


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 21, 2008)

I work in a city where we are pushing cottage developments as a way to increase density. Just to jamb more people into a smaller space. The developer makes more money per acre, population density goes up, open space goes down, and the folks that own them seem fine. Why not go one step further and just attach the homes into townhouses, apartments, or just call them what they are.... a modern day trailer park.

I like (and live in) smaller houses on the same old size lots allowing more yard to keep people a little farther apart. If you like to live within spitting distance of your neighbor then move into an apartment complex. The cottage developments are suburbia scaled down.


----------



## sapratt (Jul 21, 2008)

I have 4 kids live in a 1300sqft home and sometimes that is to small.
I suppose a smaller home would be ok for a small family.


----------



## Redox (Jul 21, 2008)

Our first house was about 1300 SF, but we only had one kid back then.  Sure miss those sub $100 utility bills!

Check this out:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.infill17jul17,0,4301530.story

12 feet wide is a little tight!  Might as well just connect them together and call it a townhouse.

Chris


----------



## sapratt (Jul 22, 2008)

Maybe someone should start building one room houses again.
If you have kids then just ad a loft.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 22, 2008)

Or family cabin had 2 rooms for right around 60 years.  We just added a bathroom onto the back.  After the addition the entire footprint is just 16 feet wide and 35 feet long.  The main room houses the kitchen and general living.  It's 16x20.  The back room is the bedroom area and is 16x~8.  We added a 5 foot deep addition on the back to house the bathroom and a small hall area.  

It's small, but has everything in it  that you would need.  The attic is just storage now.  That seems to be the main issue with small places, but you can get around that if you are creative.


Matt


----------



## begreen (Jul 22, 2008)

Small houses are taking root here too. I know of a local architect that specializes in this area. It's a refreshing change. 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/homegarden/2008060253_ecoconsumer19.html


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 22, 2008)

Well, 1,000 square feet is real small in my books.  We have a 20 year old house that is only two bedrooms, LR, DR, Kitchen, Laudary/study/office.  Still it is about 2,000 square feet because the rooms are all "good" sized.  Still, it is only about 50-60% the size of the other two houses on our private access road.  I purchased the house because our children had left our house/home .. out on their own.  It took some real looking find a new or near-new house that was under 3,000 square feet.  So, I feel we have a small house.  Everything is relative.


----------



## begreen (Jul 22, 2008)

Our current house is 2000 sq ft also. It is a nice size, though if we got rid of accumulated stuff we could easily do with less. We lived in small(er) houses in New England and in Seattle. They were between 800 and 1400 sq ft. Had two kids in the 1400 sq ft. house and it was adequate. As empty nesters that size would be more than adequate for us now.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 22, 2008)

I'm curious how heating will be handled with these smaller houses.  

Many lenders will not lend without a central heating system.  I have seen them accept electric baseboard, this may be the answer.  

These smaller houses, if super insulated, may not require much in the way of heat.  With smaller houses it certainly wouldn't cost much more to have the absolute best windows and doors, 2x6 walls filled with foam and the attic properly taken care of...  

Heck, a cord or two may heat all winter long.  A pellet stove would certainly cover it.  

Matt


----------



## Telco (Jul 22, 2008)

Sounds like a commune to me.  Smurf village.  Sorry, but this is a sucker sell here, people are paying to hype the green label, and while ensuring that they only get the "right" kind of people as neighbors.  But if they are willing to have their neighbors pawing through their houses, more power to them.  I think the building industry just found a new kind of sucker, as they are getting them to buy apartments by simply putting a tiny strip of grass between each unit.

Personally I like driving right into the garage and never seeing the neighbors.  None of my neighbors has been any further under my roof than the covered entryway on the outside, and that's the way it'll be until I move out.  Nor will I go in their houses.  I have to deal with people all day long, home is where I go to get away from them.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 22, 2008)

We have also jokingly called them campfire girl camps since the cottages resemble little cabins and with no garages or fences they look like a cluster of camping shacks. 

When I am getting utilities to these things though they are treated like trailer parks. A single lot usually with no official lot lines. Yards are maintained much like a condominium association. 

I don't like them on principle but won't go as far as Telco. I like my neighbors and sit outside and visit with them. I very much like being able to go home and not see into their kitchen from my kitchen window though.

These cottage devleopments have a high potential to be slums after the newness wears off.


----------



## JustWood (Jul 23, 2008)

Redox said:
			
		

> Our first house was about 1300 SF, but we only had one kid back then.  Sure miss those sub $100 utility bills!
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> ...




GIVE ME A BREAK    Lower property values ????????    I'd be glad to have one of those houses next door if it lowered my property value. I ain't goin' nowhere so I don't care if my value decreases.


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 23, 2008)

LEES... you've lost me, you want your property value lower?  Or is it you don't like the house that is next door now?


----------



## Telco (Jul 23, 2008)

I don't get it either.  Not ever moving away today may not be true tomorrow.  The only unchanging constant in life is change.


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Jul 23, 2008)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> We have also jokingly called them campfire girl camps since the cottages resemble little cabins and with no garages or fences they look like a cluster of camping shacks.
> 
> When I am getting utilities to these things though they are treated like trailer parks. A single lot usually with no official lot lines. Yards are maintained much like a condominium association.
> 
> ...




Bingo

We have the enviro nut jobs in our town who are dead set against "sprawl'.   I live in a newer neighborhood of ranches, capes, colonials all between 1600-2400 sq ft. Most are 3-4 bedrooms open concept on 13K sq ft lots +/-, two car attached garages. I wouldnt want any smaller lot. Builder was smart enough to leave trees.  Development is in town but some didnt like it since builder was smart enough to sell individual custom homes. This is the 2nd house I built so I have a little experience for this.

They had another infill project, condo type with smiliar size and communal lots. This was the model the town planners preached. They wanted about 100K$ more for each home.  These were the "green" houses.  They completed most of them but many are empty as they havent sold a single unit in 4-5 years. In story in local paper, realtor marketing them said many people were put off by the price and the fact that they didnt own the property and wanted their own lot for privacy. Of course the ridiculous monthly condo fees didnt help.

 I imagine after a few years they units will fall part, landscaping will be neglected and neighbors will be at each others throats.
I rented in a condo unit for a few years and that was enough to tell me to stay away from that. Too many noisey neighbors, too much maintenance deferred from association and too many stupid rules which get selectively enforced.  give me a well built house and a managable size yard.


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 23, 2008)

Yes, that's why we're on over 5 acres.  And as most of it is wild/natural, I'm helping it stay "green".  I'm not a "neat-nick", I like the unkept part of the property, it has lots of wild life and removes a lot of carbon from the air.


----------



## Telco (Jul 23, 2008)

Jerry_NJ said:
			
		

> I like the unkept part of the property, it has lots of wild life and removes a lot of carbon from the air.



Gonna use that if the HOA Nazis running my neighborhood ever get on me about grass length.  I tend to let my lawn grow a little longer than the neighbors, who scalp their yards down to putting green height.  Heh heh... course, mine also doesn't require 6 hours of watering a day, doesn't require bimonthly visits from the lawn fertilizing services, greens up a little sooner in the year than theirs, and stays green a little longer too.


----------



## sapratt (Jul 23, 2008)

I think he means that he's never going to move.  So he doesn't care what the house is worth.


----------



## jrousell (Jul 23, 2008)

that isn't small -- those are just medium..  

now  these are small:

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/

 these are so cute... rmember seeing  a write-up abotu these in a woodworkign magazine ro somethign  last year...


----------



## Nofossil (Jul 23, 2008)

There's a general underlying theme here - that it's greedy or perhaps somewhat sinful to own or utilize more of anything than some bare minimum. I sometimes (and in this case) feel like the 'green' stamp is a proxy for encouraging us to willingly adopt a lower standard of living. Live in a small house on a small lot, use dim lights, turn down the thermostat, drive a little car at slow speeds, don't take as many trips, and so on.

It's a free country, and if that's what makes you happy I wouldn't dream of standing in your way. I'll still argue that it's poverty, and that's not something I get too excited about. I'm much more interested in how we can live better and have more options and choices available to us - to have the choice to have more space, more recreational and cultural options, be more comfortable, travel farther and faster if we want to.


----------



## jrousell (Jul 23, 2008)

I live in a  great big house.  Built it myself.. we love it..

 But I can also see as I travel around that the average hosue has balooned like crazy in the last 20 years.  And most people  are just following the trend rather than making a serious decision..  For some poeple smaller is better. For others larger might be the best fit.

  Living simply and all.. I can see the merit in it..    Bigger doesn;t necessarily mena happier living...  Heck I would argue that too many familes today live in 5 bedroom houses where nobody shares a room, they all have separate telephones and canle television- and they never really  spend time together....  

  it's nice to know peopel have the freedom to choose what suits  them...


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 23, 2008)

Yes, we have been pretty negative. Well it turns out that there are a couple of groups of people who seek out and desire these cottage type communities with no required yard maintenance and a feeling of home ownership. The elderly and the starter home crowd. Followed closely by the "single mom" crowd. These are quotes from developers. 

The buildings can be cheaper to buy, and are cheaper to operate in terms of utilities and yard maintenance. These are the only plusses that I can see. 

Smaller homes are fine and are a great choice. Cottages are a whole different arrangement that brings some special twists to the small house deal. 

Good post, nofossil, that we should not be guilted into living in any particular size of home. We can and should be able to choose to live in a smaller house if it fits our lifestyle. There was a time when all new homes were being built large, 2500-3500SF, since that was what was selling. Leaving no option of a smaller new home and that is unfortunate but it is market driven and should self correct.


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 23, 2008)

Yes, but did you notice the "tumbleweed" smallest home was almost $500 per square feet.  That was my first concern, why would I pay more for less?  I think those prices may not include the land, albeit you don't need much land.


----------



## jrousell (Jul 23, 2008)

yes- those prices are outta wack.... obviosuly  it is tough to even compare- they are apples and oragnes really..
 but even so the costs are outta wack..


----------



## Redox (Jul 24, 2008)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> Yes, we have been pretty negative. Well it turns out that there are a couple of groups of people who seek out and desire these cottage type communities with no required yard maintenance and a feeling of home ownership. The elderly and the starter home crowd. Followed closely by the "single mom" crowd. These are quotes from developers.
> 
> The buildings can be cheaper to buy, and are cheaper to operate in terms of utilities and yard maintenance. These are the only plusses that I can see.
> 
> ...



Agreed!  We started out in a 1300 sf house and I hope to end up in a condo about that size or smaller.  As long as it is located somewhere in the Keys and has water rights, I'll be happy!  I do NOT want to have to worry about maintenance when I'm 80...

Chris


----------



## jebatty (Jul 24, 2008)

> Good post, nofossil, that we should not be guilted into living in any particular size of home.



Home size is both a private and a public issue. The real cost of a home is not just the cost of land + building. On the private side utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance can loom very large over time. Add to this opportunity cost for other things the money to buy and own a larger home could have been used for, such as earlier retirement, education, travel, etc.

On the public side, sprawl and infrastructure costs are huge: roads, utility services, schools, hospitals, police and fire protection. Some argue to keep taxes low - no way to do that with the cost of sprawl. USDA reports that on average public services cost $1.34 for each $1.00 of real estate taxes collected on developed properties. That extra has to be made up from other taxes and fees.

Then there is the intangible social cost: a big part of which is pollution and environmental degradation. Pollution from energy use for our cars getting to and from our homes, operating our homes, and making all the things we use and throw away in our larger homes. Environmental degradation from deforestation for housing; fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides spread on lawns and washing into streams and rivers; erosion of soils; etc.

The key to all living is sustainability for the present and future generations, something we as a nation are not doing too well at. The smaller home is just one handle that some use to get a grip on a much bigger issue. 

For my wife and I, our 1500 sq ft (with 3 children now raised to adults) is plenty, and the money we have saved in reduced utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance over our 27 years together has allowed us a lifestyle of part-time work and now early retirement. I can't imagine a larger home that ever would have justified us working longer and harder to support.


----------



## Telco (Jul 24, 2008)

One trend I hope goes away is the cathedral ceiling, so long as it waits till I sell mine.  I'll never even look at another house with one.  We didn't want one when we bought, but there just wasn't anything else on the market.  We looked for close to a year before settling for it.  Sure, it looks nice when you first walk in, but when you live there for a while... the TV volume has to be loud enough to fill all that extra space or it doesn't sound right.  When it's up high enough to sound right, you can hear it all over the house.  It's hard to heat and cool because if you heat or cool the big rooms to a comfy level, the small rooms are at the extremes.  When the small rooms are comfy, the big rooms are at the opposite extremes.  And, since the interior roofline follows the exterior roofline, insulation is limited.  Mine does have the exterior roof extending way, way up so I could at least put insulation on the very top of the room, but the angled walls don't have enough.

Those houses are too tiny though. I can't even see living in one as a single person, much less a family, even for a weekend.  I've stayed in a tiny place before, and while it might seem to be really neat to begin with, it gets old REALLY quick.  It's also harder to maintain a tiny place than a larger one, believe it or not, because you must constantly be on top of maintenance or it gets away from you.  So, in one of those houses you have to give over a larger part of each day to keep the place up.  And, if you have to do any major cleaning, there's simply no room to put something while you clean where it goes.  Call me crazy, but I'd like to do laundry just once a week, not every day.


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Jul 24, 2008)

Jim raises a number of important points, my fixes are totally different, however.  I also point out that the high property taxes in NJ assures that we pay the governmental service cost of whatever size home we have.

I see some social concerns/solutions as just more big government telling us how to live.  With over population these concerns and governmental controls will grow.  The best solution in my "book" it to limit legal immigration, stop illegal immigration, and work to convince people to have small families.  If this isn't done the US will become more and more like China and other overpopulated countries.  

For those who wish on succeeding generations such benefits as: larger populations in small homes and properties shore to shinning shore, is say NUTS!


----------



## timfromohio (Jul 24, 2008)

I can't imagine paying what some of those folks spent for the cottages.  Price per square foot was unreal.  One possible criticism I have is that if they wanted to be really "green", how about upgrading an existing home?  When we moved to NEOhio we went against the trend.  Took a new job, higher salary, had a second child, and bought a smaller/cheaper house (granted with a much larger lot and 2 outbuildings).  Much happier.


----------



## njtomatoguy (Jul 25, 2008)

790 sq ft assessed, 1 bonus room not counted by the town.
2 BR
1 Bath
LR
Kitchen
Furnace room/Utility room
Vaulted ceilings make a huge difference= my neighbor put in drop ceilings, it's like living in a shoe box


----------



## slowzuki (Jul 25, 2008)

I'm living in 600 ft2 right now with my wife, we aren't using much of the space but will be adding a loft with about 200 ft2 to get our bedroom out of the living room.  With more fore thought we could comfortably live in less space if you have some place for storage of seasonal junk.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 25, 2008)

When we think about our "need" for larger homes, it might be helpful to consider that after WWII, the average new house size was 800 sq ft, and average family size was higher than today. Average new house size today is 2500 sq ft and maybe a little more, and the average family size today is 2.6. 

It just might be that larger homes fall into the "want" rather than "need" category.


----------



## wally (Aug 3, 2008)

perfectly happy with my 1100 sf, 3-bedroom house.  2 kids, each get a room.  not a lot of free space/storage space.  the bonus is that we use virtually all of the space that gets heated.  not interested in a bigger house, the kids will be here for another 10 to 12 years, then it'll be the two of us.  it seems bigger by having a 12x20 deck and 6x14 screen porch.

the 2500 sf "average" house would seem huge to us.

i will say that our utilities are low on a monthly average.  electric averages roughly $70/month, from around 800 kw/h in january to 180 kw/h in july and august.  no cable bill.  no water bill.  septic is around $300/year for the spring pump-out.


----------



## begreen (Aug 4, 2008)

Tip of the hat to all of you living within your means. We will soon be empty nesters and will likely need to reassess our needs. Tough, there is a lot of sweat and blood into this old place (2000 sq ft.).


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 4, 2008)

"septic is around $300/year for the spring pump-out."

Blows me away. Even the nastiest regulators only require 3 year pump out intervals. Unregulated septics are usually on a 10 year schedule. Maybe you have a special issue that you are covering up by the frequent pump?


----------



## wally (Aug 4, 2008)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> "septic is around $300/year for the spring pump-out."
> 
> Blows me away. Even the nastiest regulators only require 3 year pump out intervals. Unregulated septics are usually on a 10 year schedule. Maybe you have a special issue that you are covering up by the frequent pump?



actually less than that, probably have averaged pumping 1 in 3 years.  by law, in NH, you are required to inspect the tank yearly.  rarely, if ever, enforced.  but i check ours every spring.

and i looked at my electric use history.  peak use happens in feb, with 650 kw/Hr.  low is june/july/august, around 190 kw/Hr.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2008)

We've been pumping out every 5 years and so far all we get are compliments for our sweet smelling sewage and healthy system. (It takes a sewage pumper to notice things like this).


----------



## colsmith (Aug 13, 2008)

Those of you so aghast at a 1000 sq ft. house or smaller must not travel much, as you evidently have no idea that most of the people on the planet live in houses smaller than that.  Obviously such a space works fine for living.   It is just what you get used to, what you see the neighbors have, what seems normal, etc.   And yes there should be a certain amount of concern and consideration for the fact that if everyone on the planet lived like those in the U.S. we would need several more Earths to put everyone.  Using the planet's resources wisely does not translate into poverty or an unpleasant lifestyle?!?

Our house is about 2000 sq. ft.   I admit it is much larger than we need.  We bought my family's house, where I grew up, so of course we got it as it was, built for a family of 7.  But now it is just for my husband and myself.  4 rooms mostly just have "stuff" in them and we don't use them otherwise except one is a guest bedroom, and one is also where we file things and keep plants.  We live in the other 4 rooms.  And we could make do with one bathroom instead of two.  It would be easy for us to live in smaller places.  I know because we have.  In England, Ecuador, and Puerto Rico we lived in 2 Bedroom apartments, quite easily, because most of our junk was in IL.  In Paris we had 3 bedrooms, but the two extra were empty except when we had visitors.  For a total of about 18 months over 4 years we lived on a 37' catamaran, fairly roomy for a sailboat, but tiny for a house.  Physically you don't need that much space, and if you grew up in a village full of tiny houses in a country full of tiny houses, you would be quite content to live in a tiny house.  It would be what you are used to, what seemed normal.

I do like to have a lot of outdoor space, and not be cheek to jowl with the neighbors.  But that is probably because I grew up here, in the country, on 5 acres.  But on the other hand I admire European towns, mostly designed before the automobile, where you have houses quite near each other (but with lovely yards and flowers) and close to shopping of all sorts, and then suddenly the town ends and fields start.  No sprawl.  Much simpler for transportation, people really can and do walk and bike around.  End result is less pollution, less use of resources, and the people aren't so gosh darned fat like Americans.  Seems good to me.

As for the original topic, I imagine the cottage homes cost a lot because of location and the fine woodwork and handcrafting in the houses.  *I* wouldn't pay that much for a house, regardless of the size.


----------

