4 ms·

I've seen some reasonably beautiful, middle class neighborhoods that were designed as recently as the early 1970's, but nothing since then. And while there are

I've seen some reasonably beautiful, middle class neighborhoods that were designed as recently as the early 1970's, but nothing since then. And while there are many aspects of modern interior design that I appreciate, floorplans tend to be universally terrible for anything designed since then as well. I have yet to walk into a (non-custom) home that was built since the year 2000 that I would ever want to live in.

com2kid 5y ago
The floor plan thing is real. A 1960s-1970s split level will have 3 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, a huge living room, a good size dining room, and a kitchen, all around 1800sqft. Or, you can buy a new 2500 sqft home that has the same, plus a walk in closet in the master. Heck I've seen plenty of 3000sqft 3 bedroom homes! It is insane. Sure these new floor plans have 2 dining rooms, a breakfast nook, a living room, and a family room, but that is also monumentally stupid. I've talked to new home builders and they have said that due to the demand of immigrant buyers for more bedrooms, they are now starting to make some 4+ bedroom houses at 3500sqft and above. Like... what? If you want a 5 bedroom house from the 70s you'll be out less than 2500 sqft, and that will be a very generous and spacious house. I just don't get it. Modern floor plans are asinine. Builders will reply "Well it is what buyers want", sure, but your pool of surveyed buyers is limited to people who can afford a 1.5 million dollar 4 bedroom house[1]! I do sort of get it, because land is such a huge portion of the overall house price, builders are basically stuck making high end "luxury" housing (never mind that the quality is very far from luxury) at high prices. If a plot of land costs $500k+, no way is anything resembling reasonable housing going to be built. Oh this also contributes to why people are having less kids. If an extra bedroom costs $200k or so, of course no one is going to have more than 1 baby. Disclaimer: Above rant is only applicable to large coastal cities. [1] I've talked to people in this pool, a majority of them are also wondering why the hell they are forced to purchase a house with 2 dining rooms.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  I just bought a 1600 sq ft home and it's honestly too small cause both me and my wife want our PC gamer setups so we have a dedicated room for that but then I need an office too so we end up hanging out all day in literally the smallest room in the house. I'll be doing a major remodel to address this among other issues. But yea if we had a game room or a loft or something similar it would be a lot better. The appraisal came in with the lot being 600k and the home itself is only 350k. Half an acre though.
  - com2kid 5y ago
    USB C or thunderbolt Hub. Get a desktop with a thunderbolt port. Run all monitors and input devices through a hub. Drop your work laptop into it and use that during work hours, swap 1 cable to desktop after 5. :D But yeah 1600 can be small based on layout. I've seen some 1800sqft houses that are super spacious though. It really depends on if the architect had it together.
- knicholes 5y ago
  I think you're giving too much credit to most people and their ability to plan for kids.
- lliamander 5y ago
  Yup, I have a 1-story, 4-bedroom, 2.5 bath, 1800sqft home in a solidly middle class neighborhood that was built around 1970. Bathrooms and closets are small relative to modern standards, but everything is well proportioned. We also have a decent yard that the kids actually use, and the exteriors aren't ugly.
  - com2kid 5y ago
    The trend now days seems to be as many, or more, baths as number of bedrooms. With the hopefully rare exception of family wide food poisoning, I fail to see the need.
- tomatotomato37 5y ago
  I think there is more to that disclaimer then you think. With the ongoing trend of the young moving out from rural areas to more urban areas, it would make sense that some of those people still desire the type of housing you could get where land is cheap and material is cheaper.
- Nition 5y ago
  Totally agree. Even if you can afford it, all the "bonus" rooms that aren't bedrooms are just more space to keep clean, keep warm and maintain. Unless you close those rooms off, but then what's the point?
UncleOxidant 5y ago
I live in a solid little house built in 1950. One thing I really notice about an older house like this is that the closet space is quite limited. Apparently people back then didn't have so many clothes compared to now. Overall, though, I do like the hardwood floors, the solidness and quality of build compared to what I see in more recent homes.
- BiosElement 5y ago
  Older houses also assumed you had a wardrobe, so likely you were on the cusp of that change.

com2kid 5y ago

The floor plan thing is real. A 1960s-1970s split level will have 3 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, a huge living room, a good size dining room, and a kitchen, all around 1800sqft. Or, you can buy a new 2500 sqft home that has the same, plus a walk in closet in the master. Heck I've seen plenty of 3000sqft 3 bedroom homes! It is insane. Sure these new floor plans have 2 dining rooms, a breakfast nook, a living room, and a family room, but that is also monumentally stupid. I've talked to new home builders and they have said that due to the demand of immigrant buyers for more bedrooms, they are now starting to make some 4+ bedroom houses at 3500sqft and above. Like... what? If you want a 5 bedroom house from the 70s you'll be out less than 2500 sqft, and that will be a very generous and spacious house. I just don't get it. Modern floor plans are asinine. Builders will reply "Well it is what buyers want", sure, but your pool of surveyed buyers is limited to people who can afford a 1.5 million dollar 4 bedroom house[1]! I do sort of get it, because land is such a huge portion of the overall house price, builders are basically stuck making high end "luxury" housing (never mind that the quality is very far from luxury) at high prices. If a plot of land costs $500k+, no way is anything resembling reasonable housing going to be built. Oh this also contributes to why people are having less kids. If an extra bedroom costs $200k or so, of course no one is going to have more than 1 baby. Disclaimer: Above rant is only applicable to large coastal cities. [1] I've talked to people in this pool, a majority of them are also wondering why the hell they are forced to purchase a house with 2 dining rooms.

0x0nyandesu 5y ago
I just bought a 1600 sq ft home and it's honestly too small cause both me and my wife want our PC gamer setups so we have a dedicated room for that but then I need an office too so we end up hanging out all day in literally the smallest room in the house. I'll be doing a major remodel to address this among other issues. But yea if we had a game room or a loft or something similar it would be a lot better. The appraisal came in with the lot being 600k and the home itself is only 350k. Half an acre though.
- com2kid 5y ago
  USB C or thunderbolt Hub. Get a desktop with a thunderbolt port. Run all monitors and input devices through a hub. Drop your work laptop into it and use that during work hours, swap 1 cable to desktop after 5. :D But yeah 1600 can be small based on layout. I've seen some 1800sqft houses that are super spacious though. It really depends on if the architect had it together.
knicholes 5y ago
I think you're giving too much credit to most people and their ability to plan for kids.
lliamander 5y ago
Yup, I have a 1-story, 4-bedroom, 2.5 bath, 1800sqft home in a solidly middle class neighborhood that was built around 1970. Bathrooms and closets are small relative to modern standards, but everything is well proportioned. We also have a decent yard that the kids actually use, and the exteriors aren't ugly.
- com2kid 5y ago
  The trend now days seems to be as many, or more, baths as number of bedrooms. With the hopefully rare exception of family wide food poisoning, I fail to see the need.
tomatotomato37 5y ago
I think there is more to that disclaimer then you think. With the ongoing trend of the young moving out from rural areas to more urban areas, it would make sense that some of those people still desire the type of housing you could get where land is cheap and material is cheaper.
Nition 5y ago
Totally agree. Even if you can afford it, all the "bonus" rooms that aren't bedrooms are just more space to keep clean, keep warm and maintain. Unless you close those rooms off, but then what's the point?

UncleOxidant 5y ago

I live in a solid little house built in 1950. One thing I really notice about an older house like this is that the closet space is quite limited. Apparently people back then didn't have so many clothes compared to now. Overall, though, I do like the hardwood floors, the solidness and quality of build compared to what I see in more recent homes.

BiosElement 5y ago
Older houses also assumed you had a wardrobe, so likely you were on the cusp of that change.