[sdduuuude]

There is definitely an “optimal” home size for everyone, that is for sure. Bigger is not always better. Bigger is only better if you need space for something specific.

Also, design is key. Poor design can require more sqare footage than good design. You definitely need a master bedroom, but do you really need it that big?

Another consideration is – is the square footage on one floor or two ? Stairs and hallways can burn alot of square footage in a 2-story home.

Our 1700 sq. ft Clairemont home on one floor that we re-designed seems more adequate than many 2400 sq. ft homes we have looked at in Carmel Valley.

Plus, as I once said “I like big lots and I cannot lie.” The problem is, developers these days tend to build on small lots, even for big homes. One would hope that as you get bigger houses, you get bigger lots, but the houses have to get quite extravagant before the builder starts putting them on premium-sized lots.

So, is is very hard to find a small home in a really nice neighborhood on a large lot.

So, I may not need all that interior space, but I don’t want to live where the smaller homes are because the neighborhoods aren’t as nice, not as many professionals living there, good schools, etc.

And, of course, cost, utilities and cleaning time are the downsides of more space.

To answer the question – how much do I need ? My 1700 sq. ft Clairemont home is almost enough. Other than some minor layout changes, I would like a game room/poker room where one group can play loudly while others are in bed sleeping. I would also like a “craft/art/design/project” room connected to the garage/shop where everyone on the family can work on projects with all the tools they need. I think a well-designed 2500 sq. ft. plus a 2-car shop, plus a covered carport for the cars would really do it. On 2 stories, may need 3200+. A half-acre would be nice, too.

Not surprisingly, I grew up in a family of 6 (4 kids) in a 3-br, 2400 sq. ft house on 1.5 acres in Tucson.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=EconProf]The article is hard to plod through because it is a grab-bag of unrelated statistics, faulty reasoning, and jumping to conclusions with inadequate evidence.[/quote]

I agree. A fairly worthless article, all told.

[sdduuuude]

We pay $90 per visit for a maid to do two 1700 sq. ft. houses. That’s for about 6 or 7 hours of cleaning. I think we are getting a good deal.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=bearishgurl]… I don’t think boats getting lifted in La Jolla helps homeowners in Lemon Grove one iota …[/quote]

You took the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” and twisted it to suggest the original poster was saying “anything that lifts one boat lifts all others”

Please think a bit before you embark on one of your endless posts.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Damnit!

Now I am going to have to pee in my wetsuit to stay warm! Surfing Old Man’s at San O was great with the 10 degree warmer water coming out of the heat exchangers…

😛

Building the last mile of Cellular since 0’10.

CE[/quote]

It’s taken you three years to go a mile ?

[sdduuuude]

… or horizontal Mombo, in this case

[sdduuuude]

I’d summarize this the same way I summarize whether or not bankers or borrowers were to blame for all the bad loans: It takes two to Tango.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of the goods is not the only cost of selling them. Consumers have to cover marketing costs, packaging costs, profit for manufacturer, distributor, and retailer. Plus, cereal brands have to pay the retailer for shelf space.

[sdduuuude]

May 7 CVMS: 65 for sale

14 under $1M
51 over $1M

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Happs]My bathroom currently has no can lights. [/quote]

So, when you are on the can, it is dark ?

[sdduuuude]

Personally, I don’t like the word “volatility” at all.

It is really a correlation to how the stock moves with respect to the market. The .66 may be a result of the fact that lately, Apple has been moving downward while the market moves up so it appears somewhat disassociated with the market.

Look at how it is derived. Calculate the beta for a couple of stocks and you’ll understand better what it means.

A correlation of 0 means you can’t infer what the stock might have done by looking at the market index. I believe you could have two different securities, each with a beta of zero, each with very different volatility.

[sdduuuude]

No. It does not indicate that apple is not volatile.

[sdduuuude]

Not volatility, but relative or correlated volatility, or correlation to the general market. Some call it a measure of risk, or an indication of whether or not you can hedged away the risk of that stock by diversifying in the rest of the market.

That is – if you buy 10 stocks all with a beta of 1, you aren’t really diversified at all.

To answer your question – not many people pay attention to it. Professionals do.

[sdduuuude]

I’m assuming you are looking at San Augustine.

Keep in mind, a home like that sat on the market for many months, got as low as $799K and was pulled off the market before it sold. Aim low on your first offer and be patient.

[sdduuuude]

To simultaneously mis-quote Fat Bastard and Buzz Lightyear …

Into the shitter, and beyond !

[Author]

Posts