5 ms·

Building smaller starter homes, with more "basic" decorator options would help, e.g., does a starter home have to have 2.5 bathrooms? The counter-argument, righ

Building smaller starter homes, with more "basic" decorator options would help, e.g., does a starter home have to have 2.5 bathrooms? The counter-argument, right or wrong, is that builders say that with the proffers they are required to pay, they can't make a decent profit on smaller, more basic homes and that the buying public doesn't want them.

judk 13y ago
No. Homes they are unaffordable are not expensive homes, they are expensive land. Building a mini house is a waste of effort and drives costs up, as it will need to be knocked down or mangled later to support expansion.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Mini houses use less land. More likely, they are small apartments, though; single dwelling houses are not very practical where land is expensive, even if Americans tend to pretend so.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Swizec 13y ago
    So much this. I will never understand why somebody would want to own a one-family house if they aren't going to at least have a goat or something. Doesn't have to be a farm, but houses are for people who want to work the land at least in some capacity. Hell, at least have a solid garden!
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      You can have a community garden in an apartment complex, or at least garden on your balcony.
      - Swizec 13y ago
        Yes you can. But it's stupid to have a whole house and not have any of that. I've so far lived 3 months in the Valley and those houses are ridiculous. Super big, with a yard that is huge, but useless for anything other than parking your bike, possibly having a few deck chairs, and keeping the front-lawn perfect for absolutely nobody.
prostoalex 13y ago
They can - profit per square foot actually goes down as the size of the house increases. Will be interesting to see the demand when this project gets completed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/san-franciscos-tiny-apartments_n_2213283.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/san-franciscos-tiny...

judk 13y ago

No. Homes they are unaffordable are not expensive homes, they are expensive land. Building a mini house is a waste of effort and drives costs up, as it will need to be knocked down or mangled later to support expansion.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Mini houses use less land. More likely, they are small apartments, though; single dwelling houses are not very practical where land is expensive, even if Americans tend to pretend so.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Swizec 13y ago
  So much this. I will never understand why somebody would want to own a one-family house if they aren't going to at least have a goat or something. Doesn't have to be a farm, but houses are for people who want to work the land at least in some capacity. Hell, at least have a solid garden!
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    You can have a community garden in an apartment complex, or at least garden on your balcony.
    - Swizec 13y ago
      Yes you can. But it's stupid to have a whole house and not have any of that. I've so far lived 3 months in the Valley and those houses are ridiculous. Super big, with a yard that is huge, but useless for anything other than parking your bike, possibly having a few deck chairs, and keeping the front-lawn perfect for absolutely nobody.

prostoalex 13y ago

They can - profit per square foot actually goes down as the size of the house increases. Will be interesting to see the demand when this project gets completed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/san-franciscos-tiny-apartments_n_2213283.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/san-franciscos-tiny...