3 ms·

Cheaper sure, but a large fraction of the difference is that extra 1.5 bathroom and fancy kitchen. Plus all the other little difference like more larger and ni

• sokoloff 1y ago
  Exactly; those are the things that are needed to turn "smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution" into reality.
  • Retric 1y ago
    I’m not sure I get your point. If the utility of a home is largely a function of size, but the cost is largely a function of location and amenities then there’s little benefit to specifically building smaller homes rather than less expensive homes.
    • sokoloff 1y ago
      No one is seeking to build smaller; they're seeking to build less expensive. Building smaller (specifically reducing square footage, baths, and kitchen amenities [which are a mix of size and non-size elements], and using less land [going up, sharing walls/roofs, eliminating private outdoor space, etc.]) is the mechanism by which the goal of less expensive can be met.
      • Retric 1y ago
        “Size” within the normal range of homes is only going to save you 2-5% on its own. It’s not useless, but doesn’t actually make that meaningful of difference while significantly impacting the homes utility. Amenities on the other hand can literally 2X+ the cost of a home.