New Trend I am noticing that I do not understand.

[Dances With Fire]

"For the grand-babies" was something I heard from relatives often, big house and/or moved back to the town where they used to live.

Sorry to break it to them, once those "grand-babies" start to grow up, they will start to move onto other interests and friends. Oh sure they may "visit" but how often and for how long?

SIL and BIL have a huge-ass house that sits empty 75% of the time. The kidos have moved on with their own lives. A house doesn't make a "home".

I will be curious to see if they "down-size" in the future. Knowing how spendy-pants and "big hat, no cattle" my SIL likes to portray, I really doubt that they will down-size anytime soon. They would "look" too poor to everyone they try to impress...

[sol]

(One that is 13,000 square feet for under a million- sounds like a nice bargain.)

Location counts.  10k sqft in downtown Manhattan and 10k sqft in rural Ohio do not have the same sale price.

I also think that the type of square footage matters.  Some of the "largest" houses here have things like indoor basketball courts or heated garages that can more than double the listed square footage of the property but don't actually provide useful living space for a family.  100 sqft of extra bathroom costs a lot more to build than an extra 100sqft of garage space (and is probably more useful), so sometimes those huge houses get cheaper per sqft as they add less expensive area.

I've also seen examples where huge properties go up for sale at what seem like ridiculously low prices because they are 100+ year old mansions with estates and have huge upcoming maintenance costs, like copper roofs that need replacing or cracked stonework castle walls that have settled and will need to be rebuilt.  Sometimes they are owned by people who have been grandfathered in to avoid their $40k/year property tax bills, but the next owner is going to assume that bill in full.  Sometimes they have slope instabilities that jeopardize the structure and will need an extra million in engineering work.  Or grounds and gardens that require the services of a full time landscaping and maintenance crew.  There are properties near me that can be had for under 2 million dollars that I'm assuming cost at least $100k per year just to maintain, because of their age and outdated construction.  Don't ever buy a place with cobblestones or gargoyles.

I've run the math on owning one of these "lifestyle" properties, because we could theoretically have afforded one if we had both kept working and sold off our rentals, but they have the same problem that big sailboats have; it's not just the purchase price, it's the ongoing upkeep costs that kill you.  I figure you need at least an extra 50% of the purchase price invested somewhere reliable just to throw off enough earnings to service the place.  With that kind of extra scratch, you could just update the hell out of your normal sized home and then spend a few weeks per year in luxury hotels around the world.

[wageslave23]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

[I'm a red panda]

(One that is 13,000 square feet for under a million- sounds like a nice bargain.)

Location counts.  10k sqft in downtown Manhattan and 10k sqft in rural Ohio do not have the same sale price.

Well obviously, but I'm comparing it to other property in my area- where 3,000 square feet runs about $400k.  Most of these 10,000 square foot properties were $1.2-1.5 so that particular one was quite reduced.

I also didn't verify if this included basement space, because generally basement can't be included in the listing, and is named separately if it is finished.
In this area, an indoor basketball court would count towards your square footage (many of the homes i'm seeing have indoor pools - and outdoor, of course) but a garage wouldn't. I have a heated 1,000 square foot garage, it is not part of my square footage.

[soccerluvof4]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Thats a good point!

[ysette9]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Thats a good point!

Agreed. If I lived somewhere other than California I would need a much larger house. 1100 ft^2 works just fine when you can go play outdoors pretty much any day of the year. The poor kiddos are stuck inside right now due to the smoke from wildfires and it has been hard.

[StarBright]

My in-laws are doing this right now and they are 70! They are moving from 3.5k sq feet in a super HCOL area and looking at 6-7k sq feet in a MCOL area.

I think they are just enchanted at what they can buy for less than a third of what their current home will sell for. They do love to host and their house does get crowded when we all travel for Christmas - we fit in 12 people over the holidays usually - but that only happens periodically.

[mm1970]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Thats a good point!

Agreed. If I lived somewhere other than California I would need a much larger house. 1100 ft^2 works just fine when you can go play outdoors pretty much any day of the year. The poor kiddos are stuck inside right now due to the smoke from wildfires and it has been hard.

I had this conversation with my MIL who lives in the Northeast.  My SIL and her family have a house that is about 3x ours (ours is 1100 sf, theirs is 3000).  Because: winter - if you want quiet you can just send your kids to the basement!

The weird thing is that I grew up in a big family with a small-ish house and no basement, and we survived.  We did go outside and play when it was snowy and cold though.

I feel for you with the smoke.  We had that a long time last winter with the Thomas Fire.  On top of that, school was canceled for almost 2 full weeks BEFORE the 2 week Christmas break.  It was horrible to be inside with the kids.  Eventually we drove north for the weekend (twice).  One of those days we were stuck in the hotel room because the ash drifted that way.

My kids don't actually go outside that much outside of school.  I think we are all homebodies.  Big kid has daily PE, little kid has 2-3 recesses per day.  Weekends we do chores and try to get the kids outside for an hour or two each day.  I think because we are "out of the house" so much on a regular day that we like being at home.

[Cranky]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Some people do, and some people are out doing stuff all winter. All the same, I can only be in one room at a time. I’m perplexed as to what people are doing with all that space.

I know *one* person who has a house in the 5000 sq ft range. It’s a very nice house, and I’d say that they were in the Actually Rich range (he owns a successful manufacturing business and spends his spare time killing grizzly bears and stuff.) They do entertain a lot. But most days - you still only sit down in one room at a time.

[ixtap]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Some people do, and some people are out doing stuff all winter. All the same, I can only be in one room at a time. I’m perplexed as to what people are doing with all that space.

I know *one* person who has a house in the 5000 sq ft range. It’s a very nice house, and I’d say that they were in the Actually Rich range (he owns a successful manufacturing business and spends his spare time killing grizzly bears and stuff.) They do entertain a lot. But most days - you still only sit down in one room at a time.

My SIL has a 5000 sq ft house (pretty sure that is exclusive of the basement). They have never mentioned parties, even though they are pretty active on FB. I don't think they use the formal dining room at all, the basement is quite literally for the dogs. They have a separate living room alcove in their master suite. It fits all the furniture from their previous living room. You can't talk between the living room and the kitchen, even though it is a great room. It isn't even comfortable to talk between the informal dining table and the kitchen or the living room on either side, as there are at least ten feet between each.

We moved into 1100 sq ft because of location and promptly got a roommate because it seemed like a waste. When we visit the 50 foot long great room we just huddle together and stare like bumpkins.

[Cranky]

My friends have a separate room for the dogs, across from the laundry room (which is quite lovely and has granite countertops.) the dogs also have their own bathroom and specially designed shower.

[DreamFIRE]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Some people do, and some people are out doing stuff all winter. All the same, I can only be in one room at a time. I’m perplexed as to what people are doing with all that space.

Yes, I live in a state where it's pretty cold 6 months of the year, but even when I'm inside my house, I'm only spending time in one room at a time, and I rarely go into rooms making up over 1/2 of my home's sq. ft.   Another thousand sq. ft. in the dead of winter wouldn't do anything for me when I've already got more than I need.  I also don't think two people need double the space of one person, just a fractional increase perhaps.

[Cranky]

It *would* be nice to have an indoor space for the pottery, which is in the unheated garage and this only usable about 7 months of the year. Oh, well.

[Pigeon]

I've seen a bit of it, too.  My sister and her husband have a four bedroom, two and a half bath house and are nearly 70.  They have three grown kids who live far away.  They are putting a large addition on their house.  They almost never entertain.

A neighbor has a similar sized house, and just put in a huge addition, with more bedrooms and a second family/party room.  They had to relocate their in ground pool.  The kids are grown and on their own.  One of the reasons for the addition was that one of the kids comes with their two kids to stay for a week every year.  The husband of the couple passed away right after the addition was done, so the woman is there by herself.  I can't imagine dealing with all that space to clean and yard to tend for one person.

I wouldn't mind downsizing in a few years, but one odd thing I've noticed is that smaller, one level houses in good shape seem to be very scarce and more expensive.

[Abe]

Agree with Pigeon regarding the one-level smaller houses. Out here in California it's hard to find one that's in good shape. At least for rent (which we've been looking for). Either they are >$1m bungalow near the beach, or un-maintained dumps.

[Rosy]

I think that maybe what we are noticing is simply the new norm in action - that 1-3 % of people in the US - who are the new aristocracy:) living well, because they can.
In our area - there is a distinct trend toward large(r) homes. I do know several people with houses in the 5 to 10,000 sqft plus range, plus there are several new homes in my neighborhood with over 5000 sqft.
Of course, it isn't pervasive and certainly not mainstream, but there obviously is a lot of money out there.

Agreed on the one level smaller homes, they are harder to find and more expensive which imho is due to all the snowbirds descending upon Florida with ready cash from the sale of their homes up north.
There is also a really tight market for rental apartments at an affordable price.
We are in a crunch and probably will be until all the baby boomers are gone. For now, renting costs you about the same if not more than paying a mortgage - at least that is what I hear from people who recently went through this.

Twice within the last six months, I was made aware of a home and a condo that never hit the open market - just neighbors and acquaintances taking advantage of knowing an old lady ready to sell at a below market price in exchange for dealing with all the crap left behind and not getting the house ready for sale either.
Another baby boomer off to an assisted living facility - neither one had any relatives.

My ideal would be a 2000sqft house for two people.

[sol]

I have a heated 1,000 square foot garage, it is not part of my square footage.

Around here, it seems to count as part of your house's square footage if it is "finished" space.  That usually means that it has hvac, sheetrock, and the legally required number of outlets and fire exits.  You can use it to store cars, or as a wood shop, or as a place for your band to practice.  Whether you put a sliding glass door or a french door or a garage door on it doesn't really matter.

My ideal would be a 2000sqft house for two people.

My house is just barely bigger than that at about 2250 sqft, and there are five of us comfortably living here with four bedrooms and 3 baths.  When the last of my kids finally move out and it's just the two of us here, I think it will feel ridiculously oversized.  What are the two of us going to do with four bedrooms and more bathrooms than people?

These days, I'm thinking that my ideal retirement home for two people is closer to 1200 sqft plus a big garage for shop space.

[Hula Hoop]

Our apartment is 1600 sq feet with four of us living here.  Most of our friends think our apartment is simply enormous.  Many of them live in apartments half the size or slightly more than half.  We have a room that we hardly use but our kids share a bedroom so maybe in future one of them might decide she wants her own space and move in there.

I can't imagine what anyone would do with more space than we have.  Maybe if you had 9 kids or something.  But a couple or a small family?  I guess they spend absolutely no time together in the same space.  With 5-10K square feet you'd have to basically live in different wings of the palace.

[Dictionary Time]

I've seen this somewhat frequently too.  I think it's pent up demand and that income is peaking in this time.  So they wanted a bigger house when the kids were underfoot, but they couldn't afford it.  And now that they can afford it, they don't bother to look around and see that they don't need it anymore.

My inlaws paid for a big addition when the last two (of 11! in a 3 bedroom, 1 bath, midcentury ranch) were almost out of the house.  My grandparents bought a 4 bedroom when the last of their six girls was almost grown.  I see it happening with coworkers.  And if you watch HGTV (because you're trapped in the dentist chair) you can see it in action.

This isn't to say that most people do this.  Just that some people have a tendency to move up when they feel like they finally can.

[never give up]

Crumbs US houses are big. Being in the UK our housing stock is much smaller. My place is around 750 square feet. If I had a 4000 square foot or higher place I worry I would be forever dusting! Window cleaning must take forever. Good grief the vacuum cleaner would cover some miles.

But 10000 square foot, that is crazy! To avoid spending 95% of time in only 1000 square foot of it I’d have to draw up a rota for which room I was meant to spend time in to even out my distribution of time spent per square foot. I would then have to set up alarms every ten minutes to inform me it’s time to move on to a different part of the building. What a funny way to live.

I have seen friends of my parents inexplicably have extensions or move somewhere larger once the kids have moved out. I can only assume they are at peak wealth and so chase the status and lifestyle. I have friends who have a ten year plan at their current home before being able to afford to move somewhere larger. The last thing I would want is to move somewhere bigger and possibly take on more debt in my early fifties, especially as it approaches the time where kids are home less or even fully moved out.

I actually wouldn’t mind downsizing a bit from my place in a lower cost of living area at that point in my life!

[soccerluvof4]

Crumbs US houses are big. Being in the UK our housing stock is much smaller. My place is around 750 square feet. If I had a 4000 square foot or higher place I worry I would be forever dusting! Window cleaning must take forever. Good grief the vacuum cleaner would cover some miles.

But 10000 square foot, that is crazy! To avoid spending 95% of time in only 1000 square foot of it I’d have to draw up a rota for which room I was meant to spend time in to even out my distribution of time spent per square foot. I would then have to set up alarms every ten minutes to inform me it’s time to move on to a different part of the building. What a funny way to live.

I have seen friends of my parents inexplicably have extensions or move somewhere larger once the kids have moved out. I can only assume they are at peak wealth and so chase the status and lifestyle. I have friends who have a ten year plan at their current home before being able to afford to move somewhere larger. The last thing I would want is to move somewhere bigger and possibly take on more debt in my early fifties, especially as it approaches the time where kids are home less or even fully moved out.

I actually wouldn’t mind downsizing a bit from my place in a lower cost of living area at that point in my life!

That's what we did. Actually downsized twice over about 10 years. And our house is still relatively big only because the basement being a walkout and finished adds a little over a 1k square feet. Otherwise its basically a 1700Suare foot ranch for the 4 of us. The walkout adds alot of value because it has a finished area like for a tv, couple couches , a full bedroom suite and a full 4 piece bath. all our mechanical s are down there as well in a sectioned off area. It would make the perfect rental when the other 2 kids are moved on but our community wont allow it.  We live in a HCOL area for relatively a medium cost of living state but because this pocket of houses we live in out taxes are a third or less than everyone else and our houses are valued higher because its away for people to get into this community affordable. But even so, Were going to downsize one more time. And as SOl had mentioned there is quality square footage and not so much. For my wife and I half of what we have would be plenty with an open concept for when the kids come home. Plus for sure moving to a lcol state.

But to your point of worrying about dusting and stuff, you don't think these people are cleaning there own houses? To them cleaning is picking up stuff but they all have cleaners come in at least twice a week. Getting a cleaning job around here is probably the easiest job you can get .

[never give up]

No I don’t think they are cleaning their own houses :-) My philosophy though is that if the building I choose to live in is too large for me to look after myself in terms of day to day maintenance, then I’ve bought a house rather than a home.

[shackleford]

Crumbs US houses are big. Being in the UK our housing stock is much smaller. My place is around 750 square feet.

I was going to post something very similar!  Where I'm from in Scotland, anything over say 2000 square feet would be into premium territory - £400k-£700k sort of range.  And houses are getting smaller as developers squeeze more units and bedrooms into available space - I've heard of 1000 square feet new builds with 4 bedrooms.  They show potential buyers round and the houses are "dressed" with three-quarter sized sofas and beds.  These places have minimal or no built-in storage. 

[soccerluvof4]

No I don’t think they are cleaning their own houses :-) My philosophy though is that if the building I choose to live in is too large for me to look after myself in terms of day to day maintenance, then I’ve bought a house rather than a home.

Well said!

[ixtap]

No I don’t think they are cleaning their own houses :-) My philosophy though is that if the building I choose to live in is too large for me to look after myself in terms of day to day maintenance, then I’ve bought a house rather than a home.

My SIL does clean. They only have a roomba as help.

[never give up]

That’s good, a lot of satisfaction in being self sufficient. I wasn’t criticising anyone there if they don’t clean their own home. There are so many smaller places in the UK I think I would have made a mistake buying (as a single person) somewhere that was too big for me to look after while working full time. I appreciate in the US homes at the same price point are vastly larger than in the UK and there may not always be smaller places available.

[sol]

Where I'm from in Scotland, anything over say 2000 square feet would be into premium territory - £400k-£700k sort of range.  And houses are getting smaller as developers squeeze more units and bedrooms into available space

"Premium" is sort of a relative term, right?  I suspect that your 2k sized homes in Scotland feel quite luxurious to people from Croatia, who in turn seem to live wastefully compared to people in Haiti.  What you define as normal is kind of a function of your local economy.  There are places near me where a home costing $700k USD is not only NOT a premium property, it's borderline tear-down decrepit.  See for example this story about a $775k house that is labelled "enter at your own risk".

[better late]

I’ve known several couples over the years who have built a new much larger house in their fifties or sixties  (after the kids have gone) and right as they are moving in one of the couple dies unexpectedly.

[I'm a red panda]

I have a heated 1,000 square foot garage, it is not part of my square footage.

Around here, it seems to count as part of your house's square footage if it is "finished" space.  That usually means that it has hvac, sheetrock, and the legally required number of outlets and fire exits.  You can use it to store cars, or as a wood shop, or as a place for your band to practice.  Whether you put a sliding glass door or a french door or a garage door on it doesn't really matter.

My ideal would be a 2000sqft house for two people.

My house is just barely bigger than that at about 2250 sqft, and there are five of us comfortably living here with four bedrooms and 3 baths.  When the last of my kids finally move out and it's just the two of us here, I think it will feel ridiculously oversized.  What are the two of us going to do with four bedrooms and more bathrooms than people?

These days, I'm thinking that my ideal retirement home for two people is closer to 1200 sqft plus a big garage for shop space.

I'd be happy with 1200 square feet and a big garage for woodworking, but large garage and small house isn't an option if we want city services (plowed roads). Out buildings aren't allowed, and there is a minimum square footage for houses with big garages

[ixtap]

I have a heated 1,000 square foot garage, it is not part of my square footage.

Around here, it seems to count as part of your house's square footage if it is "finished" space.  That usually means that it has hvac, sheetrock, and the legally required number of outlets and fire exits.  You can use it to store cars, or as a wood shop, or as a place for your band to practice.  Whether you put a sliding glass door or a french door or a garage door on it doesn't really matter.

My ideal would be a 2000sqft house for two people.

My house is just barely bigger than that at about 2250 sqft, and there are five of us comfortably living here with four bedrooms and 3 baths.  When the last of my kids finally move out and it's just the two of us here, I think it will feel ridiculously oversized.  What are the two of us going to do with four bedrooms and more bathrooms than people?

These days, I'm thinking that my ideal retirement home for two people is closer to 1200 sqft plus a big garage for shop space.

I'd be happy with 1200 square feet and a big garage for woodworking, but large garage and small house isn't an option if we want city services (plowed roads). Out buildings aren't allowed, and there is a minimum square footage for houses with big garages

IWe have 1100 sqft and a two car garage, but unlike most people, we actually have cars in our garage. One for us and one for our roommate.

[LiveLean]

We know a couple in their mid-50s, never had kids, who have an awesome 10,000 square foot home where they host parties regularly. Huge pool, go-cart track, the works. Always look forward to their invites.

We know another family, one child, who have a 12,000 square foot home. Very social, many parties. Sadly, a sudden heart attack took him. Not sure if she'll keep the house as his job required a lot of social organizing, fundraising, etc.

We've been in our 3,400 square foot home for 19 years, haven't had a party in 10, rarely have house guests, and will have it on the market to downsize as soon as the youngest of our two starts his senior year of high school in 2022, if not earlier.

To each their own. I look at big homes like boats. I enjoy them, I'd just never want one.

[ThatGuy]

One of my old college acquaintances bought a ~5k sqft house in a new development near the ski areas outside of Denver.  Six bedroom and he was single, no kids, no pets.  There was an entire floor of that house he basically never used.

Paid about $750k for it, and called it an investment.  He figured the appreciation would outpace the property taxes and maintenance costs, and in the meantime, he had an ostentatious display of "wealth" he could use to get laid.  A lot.  Dude was drowning in pussy in that big empty house.

I'm just saying that there are all kinds of crazy reasons people make decisions that look stupid from the outside.  I try not to judge.

My house is 1008 sqft, I can't remember the last time I got laid.  Size does matter. :)

[SwordGuy]

We went from a 2000 sqft, $190,000 paid for house to a 3500 sqft, $350,000 house in a great neighborhood two years before we FIRED.  We put 20% down so there was no PMI.

Crazy, huh?

Our neighborhood was going downhill, we wanted a house with fewer stairs to age-in-place in, and we wanted room for a home studio I could teach art classes in.   

The new house has 2 bedrooms and a dining room we don't use.  (We didn't use the dining room in our old home much either.)

But we only paid $228k for it, or about 2/3 appraised value.   So we set it up with a 15 year mortgage at a 2.75% rate and a 50k HELOC so we can grab up a rental property for cash if we need to. 

The plan was to fix up our old house, sell it, and pay off the new house directly afterwards.   In the interim we learned that it made more financial sense to invest that money instead of pay off the house.   Sure glad we learned that with the market going gangbusters! :)

Plus, our daughter has special needs and won't be moving out until we can't take care of her anymore.   Because the neighborhood is really good, we can expect the house to appreciate more than our old one did, so our son can sell the house at an bigger profit, too.


Wouldn't have done it if we hadn't gotten such a good deal.


   

[YttriumNitrate]

I've seen it go both ways.  Finish raising the family and downsizing to something comfortable and more manageable for aging in place.  And then there is my friend that did something along the lines of up-sizing.  She didn't move to a bigger house (she already has the big house) but she did things like renovate to put in a second washer, second dryer, and third fridge when all of her kids left.  She's happy that now she can do laundry twice as fast.  Seems excessive to me.

That sounds brilliant to me. Another washer and dryer for $2,000 to get back 350 hours per
year sitting around waiting for laundry. It would pay for itself in a year. Damn. I am now thinking that is the way to go in our next laundry room!

The house I moved into two-and-a-half years ago had hookups for two washers and two dryers, so of course I HAD to use both hookups...and I must say that it is as awesome as it sounds. Craigslist has an endless supply of good washer and dryers so I probably spent less than $300 on the endevour, but I figure I'll recoup some of that cost when a washer or dryer breaks and I can lazily go about fixing or replacing it rather than being rushed to put in something that works.

[Pigeon]

Agreed on the one level smaller homes, they are harder to find and more expensive which imho is due to all the snowbirds descending upon Florida with ready cash from the sale of their homes up north.

I'm in the Northeast though, not a snowbird destination.  What I see here is that there is no new construction of smaller single family homes.  It's all McMansions.  There are new townhouse communities with somewhat smaller units, but the cost to buy one of these is much higher than what I could get for my 30 year old, pretty good  condition, great school system 4 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath colonial.  Plus, then you have the HOA fees on top of it, which older neighborhoods here just don't have.

[KBecks]

I like looking at photos of bigger homes on Zillow, and when I'm done I'm usually thrilled with where we live right now, in an 1800 sq. ft. ranch with 4 br and first floor laundry.  When we bought it, it was too big for us, but now with 3 kids, it's a very comfortable size.  We still don't use the lr/dr much. 

There are things I would like in a "nice house", like a lager main bedroom and more, prettier windows, etc., but where we are is pretty darn good for day-to-day.  We can go to fancy vacation homes to live large if we want.

We really don't entertain much at all!

Soccerluv, you apparently run with a wealthy crowd and they like their big homes.

[I'm a red panda]

I have a heated 1,000 square foot garage, it is not part of my square footage.

Around here, it seems to count as part of your house's square footage if it is "finished" space.  That usually means that it has hvac, sheetrock, and the legally required number of outlets and fire exits.  You can use it to store cars, or as a wood shop, or as a place for your band to practice.  Whether you put a sliding glass door or a french door or a garage door on it doesn't really matter.

My ideal would be a 2000sqft house for two people.

My house is just barely bigger than that at about 2250 sqft, and there are five of us comfortably living here with four bedrooms and 3 baths.  When the last of my kids finally move out and it's just the two of us here, I think it will feel ridiculously oversized.  What are the two of us going to do with four bedrooms and more bathrooms than people?

These days, I'm thinking that my ideal retirement home for two people is closer to 1200 sqft plus a big garage for shop space.

I'd be happy with 1200 square feet and a big garage for woodworking, but large garage and small house isn't an option if we want city services (plowed roads). Out buildings aren't allowed, and there is a minimum square footage for houses with big garages

IWe have 1100 sqft and a two car garage, but unlike most people, we actually have cars in our garage. One for us and one for our roommate.

We have 2 cars in our garage, and a woodshop in the third + extension stall.

[couponvan]

I've seen it go both ways.  Finish raising the family and downsizing to something comfortable and more manageable for aging in place.  And then there is my friend that did something along the lines of up-sizing.  She didn't move to a bigger house (she already has the big house) but she did things like renovate to put in a second washer, second dryer, and third fridge when all of her kids left.  She's happy that now she can do laundry twice as fast.  Seems excessive to me.

That sounds brilliant to me. Another washer and dryer for $2,000 to get back 350 hours per
year sitting around waiting for laundry. It would pay for itself in a year. Damn. I am now thinking that is the way to go in our next laundry room!

The house I moved into two-and-a-half years ago had hookups for two washers and two dryers, so of course I HAD to use both hookups...and I must say that it is as awesome as it sounds. Craigslist has an endless supply of good washer and dryers so I probably spent less than $300 on the endevour, but I figure I'll recoup some of that cost when a washer or dryer breaks and I can lazily go about fixing or replacing it rather than being rushed to put in something that works.

So jealous-as I get ready to put my 3rd load of the day. Sigh. I think I will ask how much it would cost to have more hookups. I might be surprised. The 220V in the garage for the electric car was only $100. Used on Craigslist is how I roll for most hard household items. That or Costco.

[mm1970]

Agree with Pigeon regarding the one-level smaller houses. Out here in California it's hard to find one that's in good shape. At least for rent (which we've been looking for). Either they are >$1m bungalow near the beach, or un-maintained dumps.

Why spend $$ maintaining a rental when the rental market is so tight, amirite?

I occasionally wander into a neighborhood open house.  A lot of the homes have not been updated in decades, and they were built in 1920s.  Some have been nicely updated, but those are going to cost $$.

Maintenance is expensive.  Adding on even moreso, as the cost of materials has gone crazy.  I'd really love a second toilet.  Our house is just over 1100 sf, no basement, no attic, no garage.  2BR, 1BA.  4 people.

[Linea_Norway]

We made this mistake as well. We were 2 people in our 40-ies without children and moved into a 787,4 sq ft home. That is very large for Norwegian standards. There is also a garage for 2 cars and extra storage place.

We bought it because we could afford to buy it (without loan) and because we liked the view. We had been looking around for other modern houses, but hadn't found one that was silent enough to live in, without the noise for roads and with a nice view. This was the only silent area and the view is really as wide as you can imagine, 30 kilometers in a 150 degree angle.

Now that we live here, I regret the big house. It is so much work to keep it clean. Painting the walls outside is a really big job. Washing windows is an endless amount of work. Also because the previous owner didn't think about making cleaner easier when he built the house. And as we have always been frugal, we do all the stuff ourselves. Previous owner of course hired a cleaner.

Shortly after buying this house I looked up "early retirement" on the internet and ended up here. I have learned that it would have been a lot smarter if we had left our money in the stock market where it was. But done is done. In order to be able to FIRE soon, we need to sell the house and cash in. The value of the house has not increased much, but it has more or less followed inflation. So we don't really lose our invested money in it, but we lose the theoretical profit we could have had in the stock market (one of the years it was 25%).

[soccerluvof4]

Interesting to this subject is I happened to catch CNBC for the first time in a long time and housing starts are off/down. Multi-family which there is plenty of inventory there reporting is still going up where the single family homes is what dropped. In interviewing Builders there saying they would love to build affordable entry level housing but they cant afford to do so.

[sol]

Interesting to this subject is I happened to catch CNBC for the first time in a long time and housing starts are off/down.

The housing market in my corner of the country is definitely slowing.  I consider that a good thing, after the past few years.

In interviewing Builders there saying they would love to build affordable entry level housing but they cant afford to do so.

When they say "I can't afford to" build smaller houses what they really mean is "I make less profit" when I build smaller houses.  Of course they can afford to build it, it's not like they have to pay their crews a higher wage to build smaller houses. 

But in the grand scheme of things, the most cost effective way to build smaller footprint housing is apartments/condos, because they share walls and can be stacked.  New housing under a half million is exclusively condos around here.  This area used to build small houses with large yards back in the 1940s-60s, then started building larger houses with yards in the 70s and 80s.  At approximately the same time that constructions standards improved enough to make energy efficient homes in the 90s, land started getting so expensive in the city that new construction started to go in on smaller and smaller lots.  These days, all new houses in the city are around $800k for 3500 sqft, and there is another house six feet away on three sides.  Listings for new homes only show interior pictures in order to disguise how closely packed together they are.

As a result of these changing construction standards and land prices, there is a window of property ages around the 90s to early 2000s where this area was building "modern" houses with double pane windows but wasn't yet subdividing land up into the smallest possible building lots.  These local homes are pretty highly sought after, especially by environmental types who recognize the harm caused by urban density with too much impervious surface and not enough ground to absorb our rainfall.  Unfortunately, these houses are taxed at astronomically high rates, because our property taxes are based on the area of the lot.  If you were to build an environmentally friendly passive house on a large lot, you would pay more in taxes than you would for a McMansion with six feet of clearance.  So not only are the builders financially penalized for building smaller homes, homeowners are financially penalized for living in them.

Having principles is expensive.

[ixtap]

Interesting to this subject is I happened to catch CNBC for the first time in a long time and housing starts are off/down.

The housing market in my corner of the country is definitely slowing.  I consider that a good thing, after the past few years.

In interviewing Builders there saying they would love to build affordable entry level housing but they cant afford to do so.

When they say "I can't afford to" build smaller houses what they really mean is "I make less profit" when I build smaller houses.  Of course they can afford to build it, it's not like they have to pay their crews a higher wage to build smaller houses. 

But in the grand scheme of things, the most cost effective way to build smaller footprint housing is apartments/condos, because they share walls and can be stacked.  New housing under a half million is exclusively condos around here.  This area used to build small houses with large yards back in the 1940s-60s, then started building larger houses with yards in the 70s and 80s.  At approximately the same time that constructions standards improved enough to make energy efficient homes in the 90s, land started getting so expensive in the city that new construction started to go in on smaller and smaller lots.  These days, all new houses in the city are around $800k for 3500 sqft, and there is another house six feet away on three sides.  Listings for new homes only show interior pictures in order to disguise how closely packed together they are.

As a result of these changing construction standards and land prices, there is a window of property ages around the 90s to early 2000s where this area was building "modern" houses with double pane windows but wasn't yet subdividing land up into the smallest possible building lots.  These local homes are pretty highly sought after, especially by environmental types who recognize the harm caused by urban density with too much impervious surface and not enough ground to absorb our rainfall.  Unfortunately, these houses are taxed at astronomically high rates, because our property taxes are based on the area of the lot.  If you were to build an environmentally friendly passive house on a large lot, you would pay more in taxes than you would for a McMansion with six feet of clearance.  So not only are the builders financially penalized for building smaller homes, homeowners are financially penalized for living in them.

Having principles is expensive.

That's why I live in a townhouse with community green space roughly equal to the built up acreage. It is probably overwatered and over manicured, but it is gorgeous.

[PiobStache]

Outdoor living space is something often overlooked by folks.  Where we live it's outdoor living eight months of the year.

[profnot]

A lot of people near here drank the Lender and Real Estate Agent Koolaid.

One couple I know renovated their home to around 5K sq ft.  They are in their 50s with two kids in school, have zero savings, and lots of credit card debt.  The house has about 20% equity with the rest on a 30 year variable mortgage.

Yet the lender and real estate agent have them thinking they have been very smart.

That'w what I call drinking the Lender / RE Agent Koolaid.


Yet I'm thinking of doing something my friends think outrageously extravagant.  Perhaps you can explain why this is a bad idea for me.  I am thinking about retiring to a VHCOL city (my dream city) and buying a 2 bedroom condo.  This city is not an easy place for older people with mobility problems to live, so I would sell and move to a CCRC around 10-15 years later.  I assume I would get the purchase price back on the condo when I sell and it's OK with me if it's less.

I have no kids and no heirs other than charities.  I figure this is my chance to live my dream life in a city with lots of terrific museums and restaurants (so lifestyle cost is not significantly higher after I bite the bullet on the condo) for a dozen years or so, then move to a CCRC in a MCOL city with fewer museums.  Heirs would get about the same amount as if I stayed in the MCOL city throughout.

My friends say I should stay in the MCOL city and take multiple annual trips to the dream city.  But with this arrangement I couldn't have a dog with me almost all the time, which I absolutely must have.  Comments welcome.

[Linea_Norway]

A lot of people near here drank the Lender and Real Estate Agent Koolaid.

One couple I know renovated their home to around 5K sq ft.  They are in their 50s with two kids in school, have zero savings, and lots of credit card debt.  The house has about 20% equity with the rest on a 30 year variable mortgage.

Yet the lender and real estate agent have them thinking they have been very smart.

That'w what I call drinking the Lender / RE Agent Koolaid.


Yet I'm thinking of doing something my friends think outrageously extravagant.  Perhaps you can explain why this is a bad idea for me.  I am thinking about retiring to a VHCOL city (my dream city) and buying a 2 bedroom condo.  This city is not an easy place for older people with mobility problems to live, so I would sell and move to a CCRC around 10-15 years later.  I assume I would get the purchase price back on the condo when I sell and it's OK with me if it's less.

I have no kids and no heirs other than charities.  I figure this is my chance to live my dream life in a city with lots of terrific museums and restaurants (so lifestyle cost is not significantly higher after I bite the bullet on the condo) for a dozen years or so, then move to a CCRC in a MCOL city with fewer museums.  Heirs would get about the same amount as if I stayed in the MCOL city throughout.

My friends say I should stay in the MCOL city and take multiple annual trips to the dream city.  But with this arrangement I couldn't have a dog with me almost all the time, which I absolutely must have.  Comments welcome.

I don't think it is a crazy idea to move to one attractive area for 10-15 years and then move to another when you are older. But it might be challenging to stay frugal in a VHCOL area with lots out attractions. And keep in mind that each time you move, you need to build up a new social circle, which is not always so easy.
You shouldn't worry about "heirs" that you don't have. Just worry about yourself not going broke.

[soccerluvof4]

A lot of people near here drank the Lender and Real Estate Agent Koolaid.

One couple I know renovated their home to around 5K sq ft.  They are in their 50s with two kids in school, have zero savings, and lots of credit card debt.  The house has about 20% equity with the rest on a 30 year variable mortgage.

Yet the lender and real estate agent have them thinking they have been very smart.

That'w what I call drinking the Lender / RE Agent Koolaid.


Yet I'm thinking of doing something my friends think outrageously extravagant.  Perhaps you can explain why this is a bad idea for me.  I am thinking about retiring to a VHCOL city (my dream city) and buying a 2 bedroom condo.  This city is not an easy place for older people with mobility problems to live, so I would sell and move to a CCRC around 10-15 years later.  I assume I would get the purchase price back on the condo when I sell and it's OK with me if it's less.

I have no kids and no heirs other than charities.  I figure this is my chance to live my dream life in a city with lots of terrific museums and restaurants (so lifestyle cost is not significantly higher after I bite the bullet on the condo) for a dozen years or so, then move to a CCRC in a MCOL city with fewer museums.  Heirs would get about the same amount as if I stayed in the MCOL city throughout.

My friends say I should stay in the MCOL city and take multiple annual trips to the dream city.  But with this arrangement I couldn't have a dog with me almost all the time, which I absolutely must have.  Comments welcome.

I don't think it is a crazy idea to move to one attractive area for 10-15 years and then move to another when you are older. But it might be challenging to stay frugal in a VHCOL area with lots out attractions. And keep in mind that each time you move, you need to build up a new social circle, which is not always so easy.
You shouldn't worry about "heirs" that you don't have. Just worry about yourself not going broke.

I agree with Lind_Norway....It really comes down to Economics for the long term. If you evaluate what you have and it doesn't effect your long term goals then why not. You said up front you know it was going to cost you more so seems as if you have already to that into consideration.

[MMMarbleheader]

I'm single with no kids and have a 2000 sq ft house (because it was a steal).  I'm mustachian but if I was being honest, if I was married and not worried about money, my ideal house would be twice the size.  So it doesn't seem far fetched that a normal couple with plenty of money would want a 5000- 6000 sq ft house.  Keep in mind that the climate also factors into how big of a house people want.  In Illinois and Wisconsin you spend the majority of six months a year trapped in your house.

Thats a good point!

I see it the other way. Those huge houses that are common in the south would be expensive as f to heat in the northeast where a lot of new sub divisions are in more rural areas with no gas, water, or sewer.

Although almost all homes here have a basement which is not included in the sf. So you don’t have mechanical rooms upstairs

[robartsd]

I know of a few people in my parent's generation who upsized to 5 bedroom homes after their kids started families of their own because they wanted the larger living and dining spaces to have all their children and grandchildren over at the same time and couldn't find them in houses with fewer bedrooms. 3 unneeded bedrooms and an unneeded bathroom or two can easily add 500-800 extra square feet.

[Cassie]

We raised the kids in 1800 sq ft. When they left we downsized to 1400 with a one car garage. We have a decent size backyard. We still entertain but instead of 25 people we have 10 except in summer when we can be outside.  I love the smaller size. It’s one level so we can age in place. We moved into town convenient to everything with no HOA.  Between us we have 5 kids and have everyone over with no issues.  We also have a RV that we use more as a extra guest bedroom.  One couple at 70 with no kids moved from 1500 to 2700 sq ft which we thought was crazy. They thought we were crazy:))