Author Topic: Big Houses back in demand  (Read 44515 times)

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3628
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #150 on: July 14, 2015, 11:04:01 AM »
I have no desire to have a McMansion, but a desperately want a yard, my own (reasonably-sized) house  rather than apartment living, and the ability to have a large dog without feeling guilty about it being penned up in an apartment.

Some of this is probably because I've never had a yard or lived in a house, and so I'm over-idealizing the good parts (yard=grill + growing stuff + place for dog to romp around; house=my own fucking place, finally, with which I can do what I want re painting, remodeling, etc.) and under-appreciating the bad parts (lack of proximity to "stuff," although I don't take advantage of the "stuff" around me in my urban life because it costs too damned much; house upkeep costs; time for house upkeep; because I have never lived in anything but an apartment, I don't really have handyman skills, and it remains to be seen how effectively I can pick them up).
I have all of the good stuff you're talking about without giving up the proximity. Maybe this is easier in a small city in AL, but even in Brooklyn, I remember visiting townhomes - close to everything - with respectable little yards that a dog would have been happy with.
If you're living even halfway MMM, upkeep won't kill you. You can learn as you go, and the occasional pro help shouldn't be too expensive.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #151 on: July 16, 2015, 08:23:09 PM »
Quote
"Coffee's for closers only."

That bit is classic, and for good reason.

But on topic... people love big. I'm not surprised. Now, when we talk homes and big, I think land instead of the size of the house. I would love to have a huge fucking plot of land with a small house on it. Out of curiosity, how many here agree with that?

ME!!!! My ultimate house would be one hidden by the trees. People driving by would only see the gravel driveway disappearing into the trees. Not that we want to live 50 miles from everyone else but that we don't want to live in a neighborhood where every house is a version of the house next to it... ;)

have done the city life and felt it was expensive to stay entertained. Really wanted to be in my own workshop or yard. Have that now. Room for the kids and pooch to play.

We visit city living friends occasionally and I continue to feel the same about here vs the city life.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 09:02:06 PM by Joe Average »

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #152 on: July 16, 2015, 08:34:45 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3628
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #153 on: July 16, 2015, 08:36:34 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.
See, this is why I feel like every single child should be read the entire Little House series while growing up. Knowing that entire families lived in houses the size of today's glamour bathrooms just a few generations ago, and were happy as hell to boot, is a really good way to put all this insanity into perspective.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #154 on: July 16, 2015, 08:39:34 PM »
A good reason for not having an oversized house is that it atomises the family.  Several years ago I saw a bit of a TV programme about a family learning to live the pioneer life for a summer in a one-room cabin.  They looked pretty happy.  After it was over they went back to this enormous white house on the California coast, and the last bit of the show was the mother alone in this big kitchen while the rest of her family were each in different rooms all over the place and out of hearing of her and each other.  She looked sad.  The sheer size of the house separated the family members from each other.

DW & I grew up with a TV in everyone room. Same problem as the one you mentioned. Now we have one TV and share TV time.

The Guru

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Great Lakes
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #155 on: July 16, 2015, 08:43:55 PM »
Quote
"Coffee's for closers only."

That bit is classic, and for good reason.

But on topic... people love big. I'm not surprised. Now, when we talk homes and big, I think land instead of the size of the house. I would love to have a huge fucking plot of land with a small house on it. Out of curiosity, how many here agree with that?

ME!!!! My ultimate house would be one hidden by the trees. People driving by would only see the gravel driveway disappearing into the trees. Not that we want to live 50 miles from everyone else but that we don't want to live in a neighborhood where every house is 45 ft from the curb... ;)

Me too. My motto is " The house is where I sleep; the garden is where I live".

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #156 on: July 17, 2015, 08:49:57 AM »
I also want a small house on a big plot of land. Living in the city has taught me that 90% of people don't give a damn about their neighbors, especially when it comes to music. If that's the case, better off without them. Big houses are hard to maintain and basically giant sinkholes for useless junk. A small house is also cheaper.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #157 on: July 17, 2015, 10:20:17 AM »
See, this is why I feel like every single child should be read the entire Little House series while growing up. Knowing that entire families lived in houses the size of today's glamour bathrooms just a few generations ago, and were happy as hell to boot, is a really good way to put all this insanity into perspective.

People didn't live in such small houses back then because they wanted to. They lived in tiny houses because they were poor. Most people have no interest at all in cramming their family into a one room shack.

I remember Little House on the Prairie when I was young. Only with the magic of TV or selective nostalgia can a family with 5 kids that had no electricity, no hot water tank, no refrigeration, no washing machine, etc., all magically have clean hair and clothes, a spotless house, and a varied diet. My parents are in their 70's and grew up in tiny farm houses with 6 and 8 siblings and an outhouse and they have no interest at all in returning to that lifestyle. The reality of life back then was much different and much harsher than what is portrayed on TV.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8008
  • Location: United States
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #158 on: July 17, 2015, 10:49:59 AM »
I think the LHOTP home on TV was bigger than their real one too....

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4835
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #159 on: July 17, 2015, 11:51:34 AM »
See, this is why I feel like every single child should be read the entire Little House series while growing up. Knowing that entire families lived in houses the size of today's glamour bathrooms just a few generations ago, and were happy as hell to boot, is a really good way to put all this insanity into perspective.

People didn't live in such small houses back then because they wanted to. They lived in tiny houses because they were poor. Most people have no interest at all in cramming their family into a one room shack.

I remember Little House on the Prairie when I was young. Only with the magic of TV or selective nostalgia can a family with 5 kids that had no electricity, no hot water tank, no refrigeration, no washing machine, etc., all magically have clean hair and clothes, a spotless house, and a varied diet. My parents are in their 70's and grew up in tiny farm houses with 6 and 8 siblings and an outhouse and they have no interest at all in returning to that lifestyle. The reality of life back then was much different and much harsher than what is portrayed on TV.


Which is why one should read the books. Much more detail and much more realistic.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #160 on: July 17, 2015, 12:09:25 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.

Our 5 & 6 year old boys are sharing a room now, sleeping in the bunk beds that their older siblings; now 15 & 12, shared until my oldest daughter turned 13.  Teenagers need their own space, even if it's small.  Younger than that do not, no matter how they complain about it.

EricP

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #161 on: July 17, 2015, 12:52:18 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.

Our 5 & 6 year old boys are sharing a room now, sleeping in the bunk beds that their older siblings; now 15 & 12, shared until my oldest daughter turned 13.  Teenagers need their own space, even if it's small.  Younger than that do not, no matter how they complain about it.

Teenagers don't "need" their own space.  I didn't have it when I was a teenager and I turned out just fine.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6609
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #162 on: July 17, 2015, 01:15:09 PM »
Great! This means older "small" 3 bed/2 bath homes will soon be selling for a pittance right?

I hope so!

I'd have to argue, though, about the "Millenials will eventually grow up, have children, move to the suburbs, and buy big houses" thing, that some of that is because the housing market does not always allow you to get what you want exactly, and sometimes it's easier/cheaper to let the size creep up than it is to mandate that you want X, Y, and Z in a house under 2000 sq ft.  (As some people mentioned up thread, the choice is often settling or building yourself, which can take a long time).  My parents just moved to an area for work where houses under 3000 sq ft don't really exist, outside of low income neighborhoods and townhouses. So, what happens when a millennial couple gets a job in the area, wants a house with a spare bedroom for a hypothetical kid, in a good neighborhood? They're facing a market with tons of 3000 sq ft houses, and it's a lot easier to just say "Eh, it's got everything we need, so what if it's a little big?" than to fight for a more reasonably sized place. Those who build houses these days know that they'll have a larger market with a big house than with a small one, so if they're going to put in good features anyway, they build big. Houses come in really awkward "one size fits all" types and size is something that scales with niceness because of salability.
This is quite true in many areas.  Every once in awhile, we think about moving back to NoVa, where my husband's company has an office.  When I look at housing in the specific area (near Dulles), most of what I find are:
1. Newer monstrosities
2. Newer townhouses or condos
3. Older smaller homes in questionable neighborhoods (judged SOLELY on the elementary school rankings)

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6609
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #163 on: July 17, 2015, 01:19:32 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.

Our 5 & 6 year old boys are sharing a room now, sleeping in the bunk beds that their older siblings; now 15 & 12, shared until my oldest daughter turned 13.  Teenagers need their own space, even if it's small.  Younger than that do not, no matter how they complain about it.
Our boys (9 and 3) are sharing a room, and always will, because we only have 2BR.
Teenagers don't "need" their own space.
I am one of 9 kids.
Most of the time, there were about 4 of us living at home (we're spread out in age).
I remember sharing a room with 2 sisters, and they shared a bed.
I don't think either one of them ever had their own space (they moved out when they got roommates or got married).
The only reason I got my own bedroom ever is because my parents divorced.  So I suppose I had my own room for 2 years, until college, when I had to share with 2-3 others.
So I don't understand why you'd even get your teenagers to expect their own space, then send them off to the wolves in college.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6609
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #164 on: July 17, 2015, 01:20:02 PM »
Great! This means older "small" 3 bed/2 bath homes will soon be selling for a pittance right?
3/2. Probably $1.5M-$2 depending on the condition and lot size.
In SoCal even the old 1950's 3/2 ranches with a 2 car garage in a working class 'hood go for 1/2 million or more. Some are torn down and converted to McMansions, some are extended into the huge (by city standard) back yard, but most are just lived in or rented out. The closer you get to the beach or the more improved the house, the higher the price jumps by a lot. Not 2007 levels yet but getting up there. Hmmm.... didn't some crazy woman have a thread somewhere here where they said they weren't going to sell their old 3/2 1950's house in SoCal yet for some crazy reason?  Some body should probably talk some sense into that girl :-)!

Funny, I was just reading about Lakewood (prototypical California suburb) and found this to be typical:

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Lakewood/6117-Castana-Ave-90712/home/7546419

 
Lakewood actually has some pretty nice areas and the housing prices, compared to some of the other areas around here, aren't too terrible. I live in the Huntington Beach, Westminster, Seal Beach area not too far away and most of the house like mine have sold in the $500K plus range. All seems very high to me but still nothing like before the housing market crush when places like mine probably went for well over $700K. I think the median price for my area is around $650K for single family 3/2 homes.
That house was adorable.  Slightly bigger than ours, same lot size, an extra bedroom.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3148
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #165 on: July 17, 2015, 02:35:46 PM »
I'm 33.  I'm probably not a lot older than you (I'm the bleeding edge of the millenials, the "Oregon Trail" generation if you will).  Trust me, you think you have it all planned.  You don't. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Z91YkPatw
LOL--Thanks for posting that!  I'd never seen it, and it's hilarious!
I agree with this 100%.  I have no desire for a 3000-4000+ sq ft house, but there are certain characteristics I want in a house and in order to find all of them in an existing house, you need a fairly large house.  Decent closet space, enough bedrooms, storage, a decent sized kitchen, etc.  My last house was 1800 sq ft plus a basement (also 1800 sq ft) and it had a lot of the ammenities we wanted, but it was still only three bedrooms. 
This is sad but true.  We're looking for a retirement home, and we essentially want something that doesn't exist:  We want something "starter size" -- we don't want a rec room or a home theater or bedrooms large enough for seating areas -- but we want it to have walk-in closets, a huge pantry, and storage in the specific places we want it.  We want this house to have some aging-in-place features such as a barrier-free shower, one entry with no more than one step, and low maintenance. 

This house doesn't exist, so the choice is to buy a larger house ... or to build.  We're opting for building.
[/quote]In some areas, it *does* exist.  In our housing development, one section is dedicated to "age-targeted homes," i.e. homes designed for the lifestyles of retirees.  They typically have two bedrooms and 1.5 baths on the main floor, with the option of a third bedroom plus a full bath on the second floor.  No home theaters, rooms sized nicely, well-laid-out, and the entire neighborhood has a shared lawn mowing and snow removal service.  Of course, you have to deal with nosy neighbors and a strict HOA, but the type of house you're looking for is out there.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #166 on: July 17, 2015, 02:57:04 PM »
In some areas, it *does* exist.  In our housing development, one section is dedicated to "age-targeted homes," i.e. homes designed for the lifestyles of retirees.  They typically have two bedrooms and 1.5 baths on the main floor, with the option of a third bedroom plus a full bath on the second floor.  No home theaters, rooms sized nicely, well-laid-out, and the entire neighborhood has a shared lawn mowing and snow removal service.  Of course, you have to deal with nosy neighbors and a strict HOA, but the type of house you're looking for is out there.

My parents are baby-boomers (I'm a millennial, but they were unusually old when I showed up), and we've discussed that kind of "active adult" community. The problem is that everybody who moves in there is old. That's fine, for a while, because everybody has a lot in common, but then they start getting sick and dying and living there becomes really depressing.

Because of that, my parents are looking for a retirement home that specifically isn't in one of those age-targeted communities. (Of course, they aren't mustachian, so they have no problem with a stupid McMansion-style house.)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #167 on: July 17, 2015, 03:18:52 PM »

True, although I would argue that you don't need giant bedrooms/bathrooms. It always cracks me up to see people moaning over "Oh, this room is just too small for little Susie!" when it's as big as my current living room. Also, and maybe this isn't really done anymore, but when my sister and I were kids we shared a room until I was a teenager. Obviously this has its limits and won't work in every situation, but I feel like it's assumed now that kids need their own room even when they're too young to care.

I'd like 2-3 bedrooms too, but I don't care if they're small. I just like the separation/privacy (mainly for guests an/or a home office).

We did this with our two boys. Wouldn't believe the grief we got from the extended family. Projecting their belief that both needed their own room. We did that once the oldest hit his teens. No complaints from the kids.

Our 5 & 6 year old boys are sharing a room now, sleeping in the bunk beds that their older siblings; now 15 & 12, shared until my oldest daughter turned 13.  Teenagers need their own space, even if it's small.  Younger than that do not, no matter how they complain about it.

Teenagers don't "need" their own space.  I didn't have it when I was a teenager and I turned out just fine.

Did you have your own closet, or dresser, or some other storage space that was "yours" alone?  When I say teens need their own "space", I didn't intend to imply that they must sleep alone, although I admit it sounded that way to myself when I re-read it.  My younger boys still share their dressers, and even their clothes.  My older kids managed to negotiate to separate, with help from their mother, mostly because they are not the same sex.  My two younger boys are not likely to get separate rooms as teenagers, but will certainly end up with their own storage space.  Probably something like foot lockers.

RysChristensen

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #168 on: July 17, 2015, 05:03:35 PM »
Another vote for "little house, lotta land". I'm in the middle of buying the probably-way-too-big-but-I-don't-care land, then comes the fun of planning the house (and driveway/garage/barn/greenhouse/orchard etc). Currently I'm thinking 600 sf for the house (maybe up to 800, I haven't decided how much to factor in for "months of deep snow"). Probably an open floor plan, especially heating with a wood stove.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #169 on: July 17, 2015, 05:15:59 PM »
Another vote for "little house, lotta land". I'm in the middle of buying the probably-way-too-big-but-I-don't-care land, then comes the fun of planning the house (and driveway/garage/barn/greenhouse/orchard etc). Currently I'm thinking 600 sf for the house (maybe up to 800, I haven't decided how much to factor in for "months of deep snow"). Probably an open floor plan, especially heating with a wood stove.

I know from experience, that a typical wood stove is overkill for a tiny house; and that natural convection wood heat works best with a single floor open plan.  There are woodstoves made for small spaces, but they usually go by the term 'marine' and cost a fortune.  Consider getting the smallest woodstove you can find, probably made in Northern Europe, and site it as close to the center of your open space as you can stand.  Away from the walls will reduce the loss of useful floor space to a minimum, because woodstoves require a great deal more floor space than their actual size would suggest.  Just don't expect too much, wood stoves don't heat for more than a few hours without intervention, no matter what the sales flyer says.  You will not have a still flaming fire when you wake up after a good nights sleep.

As for "months of deep snow" what region is this?  If you actually expect this to occur, 1) make sure your main door swings in, and that there is at least a small roof overhang there and 2) that there is a window above the level of the door that is large enough to crawl out of if opened, and that you have a way to climb up to it in the event of such a snowstorm.  Like the window to a loft.

RysChristensen

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #170 on: July 18, 2015, 08:03:31 AM »

I know from experience, that a typical wood stove is overkill for a tiny house; and that natural convection wood heat works best with a single floor open plan.  There are woodstoves made for small spaces, but they usually go by the term 'marine' and cost a fortune.  Consider getting the smallest woodstove you can find, probably made in Northern Europe, and site it as close to the center of your open space as you can stand.  Away from the walls will reduce the loss of useful floor space to a minimum, because woodstoves require a great deal more floor space than their actual size would suggest.  Just don't expect too much, wood stoves don't heat for more than a few hours without intervention, no matter what the sales flyer says.  You will not have a still flaming fire when you wake up after a good nights sleep.

As for "months of deep snow" what region is this?  If you actually expect this to occur, 1) make sure your main door swings in, and that there is at least a small roof overhang there and 2) that there is a window above the level of the door that is large enough to crawl out of if opened, and that you have a way to climb up to it in the event of such a snowstorm.  Like the window to a loft.

Thanks! Yeah, I've been trying to balance house size and cost with wood stove sizing, and add in really good insulation and the calculations get awkward. I'll research the convection ones, though it also depends if the fans in them require power, and if so how much. I'll most likely be on solar. I'd love to put in a rocket mass heater, but I haven't figured out how to design for it with a basement instead of a slab.

All good design points for snow! I'll be in Maine, away from the coast. Probably most years won't be bad, but this past winter was bad enough in RI, with the 12" at a time snow storms, while Maine was getting 18" at a whack. (Meanwhile, in parts of Canada, they're going "What? That's a dusting!").

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #171 on: July 18, 2015, 02:40:24 PM »

I know from experience, that a typical wood stove is overkill for a tiny house; and that natural convection wood heat works best with a single floor open plan.  There are woodstoves made for small spaces, but they usually go by the term 'marine' and cost a fortune.  Consider getting the smallest woodstove you can find, probably made in Northern Europe, and site it as close to the center of your open space as you can stand.  Away from the walls will reduce the loss of useful floor space to a minimum, because woodstoves require a great deal more floor space than their actual size would suggest.  Just don't expect too much, wood stoves don't heat for more than a few hours without intervention, no matter what the sales flyer says.  You will not have a still flaming fire when you wake up after a good nights sleep.

As for "months of deep snow" what region is this?  If you actually expect this to occur, 1) make sure your main door swings in, and that there is at least a small roof overhang there and 2) that there is a window above the level of the door that is large enough to crawl out of if opened, and that you have a way to climb up to it in the event of such a snowstorm.  Like the window to a loft.

Thanks! Yeah, I've been trying to balance house size and cost with wood stove sizing, and add in really good insulation and the calculations get awkward. I'll research the convection ones, though it also depends if the fans in them require power, and if so how much.

Natural convection is the normal way a woodstove disperses heat, along with IR radiation.  That's just a normal woodstove, and they don't require any outside power or controls.

Quote


 I'll most likely be on solar. I'd love to put in a rocket mass heater, but I haven't figured out how to design for it with a basement instead of a slab.


By either putting the entire rocket stove in the basement, and just letting the heat rise slowly, or by building your thermal mass into a masonary column that you are going to need to support the extra weight of a woodstove anyway.  Basicly your thermal mass is vertical, not horizontal.  The initial burn riser needs to be taller in order to force the flow down far enough.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #172 on: July 18, 2015, 02:58:38 PM »
The chief gripe in our new house is that it has 1.5 baths (full bath plus a powder room) instead of 2 full baths (wife and I get ready at the same time in the morning so two showers is nice). 

LOL.  My solution was to have a shower big enough for 2 people....  (We actually have 2 showers and have never used the second one.)

RysChristensen

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #173 on: July 19, 2015, 08:34:54 AM »
Quote from: MoonShadow link=topic=38784.msg735925#msg735925

Natural convection is the normal way a woodstove disperses heat, along with IR radiation.  That's just a normal woodstove, and they don't require any outside power or controls.
...

By either putting the entire rocket stove in the basement, and just letting the heat rise slowly, or by building your thermal mass into a masonary column that you are going to need to support the extra weight of a woodstove anyway.  Basicly your thermal mass is vertical, not horizontal.  The initial burn riser needs to be taller in order to force the flow down far enough.

Apparently some of the newer stoves are adding fans to speed up heat spread around the room, which is what confused me. Yeah, standard stove sounds fine. Thanks for the RMH advice!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Big Houses back in demand
« Reply #174 on: July 20, 2015, 01:26:20 PM »
Quote from: MoonShadow link=topic=38784.msg735925#msg735925

Natural convection is the normal way a woodstove disperses heat, along with IR radiation.  That's just a normal woodstove, and they don't require any outside power or controls.
...

By either putting the entire rocket stove in the basement, and just letting the heat rise slowly, or by building your thermal mass into a masonary column that you are going to need to support the extra weight of a woodstove anyway.  Basicly your thermal mass is vertical, not horizontal.  The initial burn riser needs to be taller in order to force the flow down far enough.

Apparently some of the newer stoves are adding fans to speed up heat spread around the room, which is what confused me. Yeah, standard stove sounds fine. Thanks for the RMH advice!

In my experience, the fans are a gimmick.  Mine has a fan, but just makes noise.  It might make it nominally more efficient, but it certainly doesn't spread the heat around any better.  When the fire is 'peaking' (the heat is always either increasing or declining in a real wood stove) I can feel the IR half-way across the kitchen (and it gets noticably cooler when someone crosses between it an myself, casting a "heat shadow") and the convection is so strong it will move small streamers placed near the ceiling. I noticed this trick by watching old cobwebs I forgot to clean out.  The heat produces a column of moving air that rises to the ceiling, pushes it's way across the ceiling and gently down the walls to run back near the floor.  You won't feel a breeze, because it's within inches of the ceiling, but you can prove that it's there.  The powered fans don't come close to moving as much air.