Hmm…while I agree that going to a bigger house, you get a better “bang for the buck”, I’m a bit hesitant to say it’s due to the lot. I agree that if you build a bigger house on a lot, then that’s more money to spread around the house which will result in a smaller $/sq ft, but that’s if the lot sizes are the same.
The Aberdeen house (last time I looked) that I saw had a lot of about 4300 sq ft for their 2300 sq ft home. At 405K (they were asking at the time 425K with 20K incentives), that’s still $94/sq ft (405K/4300 sq ft). For living space, that’s $176/sq ft.
Whereas the Barrington house, they were asking 455K (465K with 10K incentives) for their 3068 sq ft house on a 5130 sq ft lot. That’s $89/sqft for land and $148/sqft of living space.
Granted, the location is worse in Barrington, so that could be an obvious reason why. Or I can be looking at this whole thing wrong =P Please correct me if my logic is flawed.
As for how big of a house you need, I agree you don’t need the biggest house ever. But it’s nice to have (if you can afford the utilities).
But let’s say there’s a 2300 sq ft house at 400K, a 3000 sq ft house at 435K, and a 3700 sq ft house at 470K. Which would you choose? Let’s assume that the lot sizes are proportional to the house size and they’re in the same location.
