Size of Avg. US home over time

[afx114]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, we regularly use the sidewalks in our neighborhood, as do most of our neighbors; it’s a very walkable neighborhood because of the sidewalks and front yards. I think you have a distorted view of what suburban neighborhoods are like and why people prefer to live in them.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that sidewalks alone are what make a neighborhood “walkable.” My idea of “walkable” is having destinations that you can walk to — parks, restaurants, bars, grocery stores, coffee shops, movie theaters, entrainment, etc. If you need a car to do any of these things, I don’t think that qualifies the neighborhood as “walkable.” Just an opinion coming from a city dweller who grew up in the ‘burbs.

Speaking of the suburbs, has anyone checked out Arcade Fire’s new record? It’s called “The Suburbs” and covers some interesting territory regarding the burbs and sprawl — memories from growing up in the burbs and the empty feeling you get returning to them when you’re older. An entire album about the suburbs! Highly recommended for the poignant social commentary. Some sample lyrics:

“Kids wanna be so hard
But in my dreams we’re still screamin’ and runnin’ through the yard
And all of the walls that they built in the seventies finally fall
And all of the houses they build in the seventies finally fall
Meant nothin’ at all
Meant nothin’ at all
It meant nothin”

“You started a war
That you can’t win
They keep erasing all the streets we grew up in”

“They heard me singing and they told me to stop
Quit these pretentious things and just punch the clock
‘Cause on the surface the city lights shine
They’re calling at me, come and find your kind
Sometimes I wonder if the World’s so small
That we can never get away from the sprawl
Living in the sprawl
Dead shopping malls rise like mountains beyond mountains
And there’s no end in sight
I need the darkness, someone please cut the lights”

“Took a drive into the sprawl
To find the house where we used to stay in
Couldn’t read the number in the dark
You said let’s save it for another day

Took a drive into the sprawl
To find the places we used to play
It was the loneliest day of my life
You’re talking at me but I’m still far away”

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Rush “Subdivisions”
WRT suburbs,”No where is the Mystic or the Dreamer so alone”.

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Rush “Subdivisions”
WRT suburbs,”No where is the Mystic or the Dreamer so alone”.

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Rush “Subdivisions”
WRT suburbs,”No where is the Mystic or the Dreamer so alone”.

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Rush “Subdivisions”
WRT suburbs,”No where is the Mystic or the Dreamer so alone”.

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Rush “Subdivisions”
WRT suburbs,”No where is the Mystic or the Dreamer so alone”.

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.

But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."

HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.

Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.

There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.

Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.

But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."

HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.

Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.

There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.

Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.

But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."

HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.

Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.

There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.

Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.

But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."

HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.

Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.

There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.

Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.

But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."

HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.

Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.

There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.

Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
[/quote]

Because those families want new, crisp and clean.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]

bearishgurl, I feel that the older houses are cost prohibitive for what you get — old, functionally obsolete houses. That’s why people take the path of least resistance and buy new.

If we could provide housing in crisp, clean and “new” condition near the urban core, then people would stay.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
[/quote]

Because those families want new, crisp and clean.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]

bearishgurl, I feel that the older houses are cost prohibitive for what you get — old, functionally obsolete houses. That’s why people take the path of least resistance and buy new.

If we could provide housing in crisp, clean and “new” condition near the urban core, then people would stay.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
[/quote]

Because those families want new, crisp and clean.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]

bearishgurl, I feel that the older houses are cost prohibitive for what you get — old, functionally obsolete houses. That’s why people take the path of least resistance and buy new.

If we could provide housing in crisp, clean and “new” condition near the urban core, then people would stay.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
[/quote]

Because those families want new, crisp and clean.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”

As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]

bearishgurl, I feel that the older houses are cost prohibitive for what you get — old, functionally obsolete houses. That’s why people take the path of least resistance and buy new.

If we could provide housing in crisp, clean and “new” condition near the urban core, then people would stay.

[Author]

Posts