3 ms·

I don't understand how my quality of life will improve if I go from my current 1500 sqft home to a 3500 sqft home. Living near shops, walking around town with m

I don't understand how my quality of life will improve if I go from my current 1500 sqft home to a 3500 sqft home. Living near shops, walking around town with my family and being able to ride my bike brings me more joy than a larger home office. I suppose if I had a larger family I would want more bedrooms. But we are done growing our family at this point - and mine is roughly the size of the median, so I don't see why we need to flood the market with homes that are too big.

_Wintermute 5y ago
Perhaps slightly off-topic, but as someone who has spent most of my time living in European cities these house sizes are just mind-blowing to me. 1500 sqft is 140 m^2, my first apartment was 30m^2. I can't imagine what you would put in a 3500 sqft (325 m^2) house, never mind something like answering the door if you were at the other side of your house.
redisman 5y ago
Different people like different things
- davidw 5y ago
  This is the entire point! Let the market provide the different things people want. No one is telling ranchers in Montana that they have to live in a walkable neighborhood in San Francisco. But most places do have laws on the books preventing more of those kinds of walkable neighborhoods from being produced for those that prefer that.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    But it’s not an option when investors buy up and chase away people who want to be where they are the way they are. It’s a race to the bottom for the most density. It isn’t people building what they want for themselves but investors incrementally getting people accustomed to less and less for increasing amounts of money. If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places.
    - davidw 5y ago
      I get your worry, but I think you have some of the cause/effects backwards. Investors invest in places that do not allow enough housing. The best way to stick it to the investors is to produce abundant housing. https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blackrock-bubble https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blac... > If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places. Yes, we should absolutely relax zoning! But rents are set by the market, by and large. You drop them by allowing housing to be built to meet market demand.
    - sagarm 5y ago
      > buy up and chase away people i.e. make them an offer to buy their property which they, of their own choice, accept. > If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places. I'm unclear on what your point is now. Lowering the rent means allowing supply to respond to demand (since we don't set market rent by fiat), i.e. allowing developers to make offers to buy parcels and upgrade them to higher density. Are you for this or not?
- spamizbad 5y ago
  I agree. So give us choice. Right now if you're doing a new housing start in the US it's going to be large and unwalkable.

_Wintermute 5y ago

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but as someone who has spent most of my time living in European cities these house sizes are just mind-blowing to me. 1500 sqft is 140 m^2, my first apartment was 30m^2. I can't imagine what you would put in a 3500 sqft (325 m^2) house, never mind something like answering the door if you were at the other side of your house.

redisman 5y ago

Different people like different things

davidw 5y ago
This is the entire point! Let the market provide the different things people want. No one is telling ranchers in Montana that they have to live in a walkable neighborhood in San Francisco. But most places do have laws on the books preventing more of those kinds of walkable neighborhoods from being produced for those that prefer that.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  But it’s not an option when investors buy up and chase away people who want to be where they are the way they are. It’s a race to the bottom for the most density. It isn’t people building what they want for themselves but investors incrementally getting people accustomed to less and less for increasing amounts of money. If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places.
  - davidw 5y ago
    I get your worry, but I think you have some of the cause/effects backwards. Investors invest in places that do not allow enough housing. The best way to stick it to the investors is to produce abundant housing. https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blackrock-bubble https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blac... > If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places. Yes, we should absolutely relax zoning! But rents are set by the market, by and large. You drop them by allowing housing to be built to meet market demand.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    > buy up and chase away people i.e. make them an offer to buy their property which they, of their own choice, accept. > If you zoned more places to be walkable and lowered rent for the kinds of places people wanted to walk to you wouldn’t have to cram people into a few desirable places. I'm unclear on what your point is now. Lowering the rent means allowing supply to respond to demand (since we don't set market rent by fiat), i.e. allowing developers to make offers to buy parcels and upgrade them to higher density. Are you for this or not?
spamizbad 5y ago
I agree. So give us choice. Right now if you're doing a new housing start in the US it's going to be large and unwalkable.