Should we take the money??

[bearishgurl]

flu, I know this is probably a foreign concept for you, but why don’t you try to cram 5 people (3 growing) and 3 dogs into 1300 sf for several years and give us a status report on how the 95%ers live in SD County?

You assume a lot about me that isn’t true and never was true. Among other fallacies, after I explained here why I purchased and reside in Chula Vista, you are now claiming that it is my preference to live there. Nothing could be further from the truth. Given my choice, I would MUCH RATHER live in urban SD (south of I-8) or in my choice NorCal counties. I’ve owned my latest property for nearly 14 years. A LOT has changed since then … including the City’s quality of life and my own circumstances.

It IS material that the OP has a 10K sf lot. I have no doubt that this size lot is an anomaly in their area, especially in the tracts with smaller housing. It’s actually what makes the $330K price “worth it,” along with the absence of MR and HOA on their small pocket/tract, IMO. They just lucked out. There are a few small isolated pockets like this elsewhere in the county which were developed long after being subdivided.

It is what it is.

[spdrun]

1300 sf is big assuming the number doesn’t include garage floor space. Average house size was under 1000 sf in the early 1970s. If you have another 9000 sf of outdoor space for hobbies, entertaining, and play, five people and a few mongrels living in 1300 sf is a non-issue.

With 1300 sf, you end up using 450 sf for four bedrooms (one master), 100 sf for kitchen, another 150 sf for 1.5 baths, 300 sf for living/dining, 100 sf for hallways, 200 sf for enclosed porch/family room. Perfectly adequate for everyone to have their own private space as long as you have modest expectations. But a 10×10′ bedroom seems positively huge to a child.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]1300 sf is big assuming the number doesn’t include garage floor space. Average house size was under 1000 sf in the early 1970s. If you have another 9000 sf of outdoor space for hobbies, entertaining, and play, five people living in 1300 sf is a non-issue.

With 1300 sf, you end up using 450 sf for four bedrooms (one master), 100 sf for kitchen, another 150 sf for 1.5 baths, 300 sf for living/dining, 100 sf for hallways, 200 sf for porch. Perfectly adequate for everyone to have their own private space.[/quote]

I agree that 1300 sf was perfectly adequate for a family of five in the 1970’s and prior, spdrun. As I mentioned before on this thread, families didn’t typically own all the consumer goods back then that they do now or even the amount of vehicles and “toys” that today’s famillies have.

I do realize some of the mid and lower-priced coops and walkups in Manhattan, NY (where you reside) and its burroughs are in the 1000 – 1600 sf range for a 3-bdrm owned dwelling, which may or may not have a garage and that these types of dwellings are commonplace. But out west, most young families typically have newer housing with more space to live in unless they are renting an apt.

In CA, garage space isn’t included as in the square footage when appraising a residence or marketing it.

[spdrun]

Nope, your argument doesn’t hold water: consumer goods have become SMALLER since the 1970s. A TV used to be a foot or two deep. A computer was something that sat on a desk and couldn’t easily be moved. A typewriter was pretty big too. An iPod or smartphone with speakers is tiny as compared to a radio/cassette of the 1970s.

Vehicle space doesn’t play into it. You don’t need more vehicles than drivers, and one should be able to park two of them 🙂

And with the San Diego climate, the lot becomes an extension of the house 95% of the year. One can also put down a “temporary” storage shed if they’re into things like motorcycles and sailboats. Those are the toys that haven’t changed in size, but people had them in the 70s as well.

I’d have thought that you were smarter than to believe the “bigger is better, must renovate” HGTV propaganda.

[fun4vnay2]

I believe that a relatively smaller house with larger number of bedrooms like 4 BR in 1400sqft is a better utilization of space at least in CA where the weather is good
But we have been blinded by the hype that bigger is better.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Nope, your argument doesn’t hold water: consumer goods have become SMALLER since the 1970s. A TV used to be a foot or two deep. A computer was something that sat on a desk and couldn’t easily be moved. A typewriter was pretty big too. An iPod or smartphone with speakers is tiny as compared to a radio/cassette of the 1970s.

Vehicle space doesn’t play into it. You don’t need more vehicles than drivers, and one should be able to park two of them 🙂

And with the San Diego climate, the lot becomes an extension of the house 95% of the year. One can also put down a “temporary” storage shed if they’re into things like motorcycles and sailboats. Those are the toys that haven’t changed in size, but people had them in the 70s as well.

I’d have thought that you were smarter than to believe the “bigger is better, must renovate” HGTV propaganda.[/quote]

Very good point. I don’t own a traditional desktop anymore. My desk it the dining room table. I save all my paperwork in pdf format.

And my TV just hangs on the wall.

Do you think that they’ll make receivers/amps in small housings? Or do they need to be large for heat dissipation?

It’s a lot harder to keep a small house tidy. Big houses are more mess friendly. Design is more important in small houses. I know an architect who fixed up a 1970s house. Very smart design throughout. Parents and 2 kids.

[spdrun]

I had an amp that was about 6″ deep at one point. But with IR extenders or RF remotes, you can bury an amp in a closet these days.

[FlyerInHi]

I have to leave the amp and HTPC outside, under the cabinet because they generate a lot of heat. That’s a bummer because it detracts from the clean lines I want, especially after I took care to run all the cables within the walls.

The cabinet is hung on the wall, under the TV and LED lights illuminate the space below.

[spdrun]

Get a quiet fan designed for a cabinet.

[joec]

One downside people don’t see with not paying for the CFD bonds is that you CAN’T go to all the new schools built using those bonds.

That will make it not the same as living in the area as other kids closeby. Maybe the next door house is in the same boat, but I’d guess those houses would be less desirable.

In 4S, there is a gated community I think right next to the school and they aren’t directed to go there now (if the school is full which it always is).

To me, that makes the house a worst deal since you’re stuck driving to a far away school and not making friends with the locals.

This happened a lot with the new PUSD school as well (Design 39).

[masayako]

Go with Option 1. Spend less, save more every paycheck. Payoff debts and don’t buy unnecessary, enpensive stuff. Good luck.

[svelte]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=svelte]
There is no denying that an older car is more apt to break down…that’s what drives the decision, not the trappings of middle-class prosperity.[/quote]

Older cars do break down more… but stranded on the road is an old urban legend more reminiscent of the 1980s.[/quote]

Yeah, an urban legend.

http://www.10news.com/news/one-killed-in-four-car-i-5-collision-in-del-mar

“According to California Highway Patrol officers at the scene, a Nissan was stalled in the roadway when it was rear-ended by a second car. “

[spdrun]

If you’re gonna be a typical American wimp and worry about every rare way to die, go ahead. Article also doesn’t speak to the Nissan’s age.

[svelte]

It was a gen 4 1995-2000.

I know you have problems with logic sp, but if breakdowns actually occur they are not urban legend.

That was my point. How much risk someone will take take varies. Moms and dads tend to accept less risk than unemployed single guys who hang out on the net all day.

[spdrun]

Thank G-d that my parents weren’t a bunch of wusses like the average mammal on this board. They drove an older car, lived in a condo, but made sure that they (and the kids) had an opportunity to travel and learn. Americans are way too fearful and risk-averse, and anglo Californians are near the top of this list unfortunately.

I mean, where else can you go to a Starbucks and see a sign that coffee products may cause cancer, or get on a train and see a sign that diesel exhaust may cause lung disease?

And lastly, I work exactly as hard as I need to work. Jealous?

I mean, look at some people on here. I’ve heard them say, no point in living very close to the beach, because who has time for that anyway?

[Author]

Posts