3 ms·
Lots of these "better" giant houses (at least in the US) waste tons of space. You can feel like you have more space in a house significantly smaller if the layo
by yamtaddle 4y ago
Lots of these "better" giant houses (at least in the US) waste tons of space. You can feel like you have more space in a house significantly smaller if the layout is at all thoughtful. I've owned houses with 500+ square feet that were practically unusable.
The finishes have also gotten worse, in many ways. These expensive McMansions have worse trim, doors (interior and exterior), and sometimes flooring than cheap working-class houses in the '60s and '70s. Better windows I guess. At least as far as energy efficiency goes. Better insulation. Basically if code says it has to be better, it is, and everything else is worse.
- sidewndr46 4y agodid you mean to say 5000+ ? Or were you just saying that around 500 square foot was unusable?
- yamtaddle 4y ago500, maybe somewhat more, that was effectively unusable. Weird transition spaces that you can't really do anything with and also lack walls to put anything against (friggin' open floorplans) eating up 100 or more square feet, a front room of perhaps 300 sqft laid out so poorly that it was hard to do much with it (and so extremely open that it defied repurposing), a master bedroom that they'd decided to make the size of an entire three-car garage (that's what was under it) because they couldn't think of anything else to do with that space, I guess, in a house where all the other bedrooms were perhaps 1/4 that size, so not some obscene mansion where all the rooms are vastly oversized. That kind of thing.
- sidewndr46 4y agoThanks for clarifying.