4 ms·
I guess the corollary is that 2500 square feet can be eaten up very quickly if you don't have a good floor plan, which is pretty common.
by tunesmith 6y ago
I guess the corollary is that 2500 square feet can be eaten up very quickly if you don't have a good floor plan, which is pretty common.
- hinkley 6y agoA lot of these construction companies have figured out that most of the labor is in the walls. In a square room, the walls are sqrt(2) of the area. Bigger rooms = lower cost per square foot. Another hallmark of these houses are complete lack of trim. They're just big boxes. A more future-proof way to get around these building code limitations is 1) attic space, and 2) higher ceilings. You get a better feeling of space, and you can get more board-feet of storage in the same footprint. Seattle is also full of illegal remodels, only some of which a lender will balk at (source: bought a quirky home, the owners had to remove features for us to buy it).
- ghaff 6y agoIf you don't have a garage, a decent attic, or a basement--and maybe you don't have great closet space--you're now possibly talking about taking up a "bedroom" as a storage area. And, to another comment, I generally like the main area of the house being fairly (though probably not 100%) open. But having big bedrooms and bathrooms may or may not be something you value, but they're not generally super-efficient unless, say, you want your bedroom to also be your office.